|
|
Posted by Steve on 10/08/07 16:15
"Brendan Gillatt" <brendanREMOVETHIS@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote
in message news:uNmdnQZRyaKPqZTanZ2dnUVZ8sijnZ2d@pipex.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:25:36 +0100, Brendan Gillatt
>> <brendanREMOVETHIS@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Watch your mouth, you stupid kid, you don't have any fuckin cl00 as to
>>>> the extent of what I've done to people online:
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame/msg/7c40a63eea26ff44
>>
>>> Teasy today?
>>
>> I just want to make sure you comprehend what you're dealing with
>> before you make some really stupid fuckin mistake (like the last
>> d00d). You've been feigning thick skin, but I wonder how thick it
>> really goes. Most people draw the line at some point...and I very
>> frequently have a tendency to cross those lines. So I'm basically
>> just telling you to be aware of just how far over the line I'll go
>> online.
>
> Dear me... I'm quivering. You see, I don't have an attachment to
> something like usenet. I could happily unplug tommorow and not miss
> anything at all. This makes your silly threats rather pointless.
>
>>> I think I struck a nerve =]
>>
>> Yeah, the one that makes me beat n00b.jobs.
>
> Like the n00b.job that your website has shown itself to be? So you're
> threatening me with violence? Surely you don't say that when you're
> level headed.
>
>>>> Haven't use my Malkavian character in a few years though...pray to
>>>> whatever God you believe in that I don't ever start again. My
>>>> Malkavian character makes my Onideus character look like a cute kitten
>>>> by comparison.
>>
>>> I look forward to meeting her. Is it a date? I'll pick her up at around
>>> 7:00 tonight.
>>
>> I'm sure you'd like that.
>>
>>>>> No, I'm sure the RPG community could manage without your sprite
>>>>> generator.
>>
>>>> Considering it's the only one for RPG Maker XP...no, they really
>>>> couldn't actually.
>>
>>> You mean that no-one in the world can grasp making sprites in photoshop?
>>> Hell, you could even do that in MS Paint of you were so inclined.
>>
>> Sure, if you wanna wind up with something that looks like this:
>> :
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_PoE/PoEtards_Are_THE_Dumbest_Mother_Fuckers.png
>
> That's all you could accomplish with photoshop? You should take a course
> or something.
>
>> Free cl00, Dipshit, Photoshop isn't some magixal program that can just
>> churn out teh uber graphics with nothing more than a few clicks of the
>> mouse. It requires SKILL and ABILITY.
>
> Which is more flexible than selecting pre-built bitmaps and sandwiching
> them together.
>
>> Some of the custom parts I've
>> made for the generator took HOURS to construct. And even reworking
>> existing parts to work on my models takes upwards of an hour per.
>> Creating the layer splits and testing adds on yet another half hour.
>
> You poor soul. Too bad no one thought you were talented enough to employ
> you as a graphics designer - hence the big shiny donate button.
>
>>>> Oh you sad little fool.
>>
>>> I'm quite happy today, thank you.
>>
>> How much Xanax are you taking? LOL
>>
>>>>> Flash is not good as a primary design element.
>>
>>>> Actually Flash is the perfect user front end. It's the most cross
>>>> compatible solution that currently exists and the number of features
>>>> it supports over other forms is impressive to say the least. It
>>>> updates extremely easily and most everyone already has it installed
>>>> since it's needed for all the video type sites (like YouTube) as well
>>>> as most gaming sites and the like (like Neopets, Zwinky, etc, etc).
>>>> If the sprite generator was being catered to blind people or the Amish
>>>> of the Internet (Lynx users and the like), then yeah, it may not be
>>>> such a great choice, but for the market it's aimed at it's the ideal
>>>> solution...see, you don't comprehend that though, I mean even after I
>>>> explain it, you still don't get it, do you? *nods*
>>
>>> I'm not saying flash isn't useful. Hell, I even use it on my site for
>>> non-atomic design elements. It should never, ever be relied on, however.
>>> I bet you never learned that from HTML for Dummies.
>>
>> Sorry, Dummie, but my knowledge wasn't slurped up from some third
>> party, it comes directly from my own methodical testing and
>> experimentation. As far as a user front end...you don't even need
>> HTML anymore:
>> :
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/Forum_Template/index.swf
>
> I'd be curious to see how your testing weighs up to the research done by
> the W3 consortium.
>
>>>> The Sprite Generator wasn't made for your type. Now go plow yourself
>>>> a cornfield you stupid hat wearing, Amish pig fucker.
>>
>>> L-O-L. You're working yourself up some bad now dear.
>>
>> L-O-L-L-E-R-C-O-P-T-E-R!!1!!1!!!!
>>
>> ...he's laughing everyone...REALLY. *nods*
>
> I did have a snigger at that comment - I just find your brash commments
> pretty amusing.
>
>>>>> I, much the same as anyone who has the sense to leave JS off,
>>
>>>> There's like 3 other people besides you, and no, I didn't make the
>>>> Sprite Generator for those three retards either.
>>
>>> It seems to me that people with more knowledge turn off javascript -
>>> probably because they check milw0rm daily and realise that 99% of remote
>>> attacks are in fact script based. Ask your gran if she leaves JS off and
>>> she'll not have a clue as to what you're talking about.
>>
>> WRONG!
>>
>> 99.9% of ALL attacks are SE based, social engineering. Even if they
>> happen to use scripts they STILL require user stupidity to work.
>> That's why the smarter people don't disable javascript, because
>> they're not dumb enough to fall for stupid SE tricks. And as you
>> said, everyone else just ignores the problem.
>
> Sorry, have you actually even read milw0rm? It's not a gloat page. It
> documents real, remote BOFs and such like. Guess what particular
> presentation medium they _didn't_ use.
>
>>> Also, why do you need JS to load a flash object?
>>
>> I don't, but it's needed for other things, like my site tracker that I
>> plan to put on all my sites.
>
> So you don't need code to load your flash animation but it's there
> anyway? I really don't follow.
>
>>>>> doesn't find a blank, black page interesting.
>>
>>>> Of course you find it interesting, you're a stupid fuckin Amish! I
>>>> mean you don't shut off javascript and Flash unless you're TRYING to
>>>> limit you user experience. So either you're a fuckin idiot or you
>>>> LIKE boring, nondescript, plain text garbage.
>>
>>> Bang on! I do like nondescript, plain text _content_. It provides
>>> information to me, more so than flashing animations.
>>
>> And this is where you're shortsighted. You don't comprehend the
>> concept of using design to enhance the content. Refer to this post:
>> :
>> http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12516-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=34733&messageID=639263&start=-9994
>
> Why would I refer to a post that you yourself wrote? Sounds a bit
> pointless to me. Every respected author on the web uses CSS styling to
> show emphasis - not CAPITALS. No one likes to read a post that shouts at
> them. I seem to recall that blogs are "tweenage blogger board hoo-ha".
> What on earth are you doing posting to one?
>
>>>>> You could make the same thing
>>>>> using proper (X)HTML better, faster and more extensible.
>>
>>>> LOL, you stupid retard, you have no idea what you're even talking
>>>> about (hell your stupid ass probably hasn't even seen it).
>>
>>> Seen what? XHTML? Dear me, someone hasn't done their research. Google
>>> dork my name and read my page's source code. I'd like to see what you
>>> mean when you realise that I use modern Doctypes and language for my
>>> pages, fonts and colour schemes that are easy on the eye, and will
>>> render on anything from a V100 terminal to a graphics workstation.
>>
>> Yeah and none of yer content is worth looking at as a result.
>
> Denial ;]
>
>>>> The ONLY
>>>> other thing that it could have possibly been made with was
>>>> Java...that's it, Java, that's the only other web language available
>>>> that has color transform matrices (amongst a slew of other stuff
>>>> that's needed). You could ~possibly~ half-ass it in PHP and
>>>> javascript, but it'd be WAY inefficient and the home brew color
>>>> transform matrices wouldn't be nearly as good.
>>
>>> Errr, your "colour transform matrices" aren't all that complex. I've
>>> seen your ActionScript and I could write that in 2 hours in PHP.
>>
>> Then let's see you do it! You run at the mouth pretty good, talkin
>> shit, claiming how easy it is, so do it, Mouth! Or is pullin shit out
>> of yer ass all the better you can do?
>
> Okay what would you like me to do? What transform would you like me to
> code? I charge £15 per hour I warn.
>
>>>> There is absolutely *NO* way you could do it with just straight XHTML,
>>>> don't be a fuckin retard. Well unless maybe your idea of a sprite
>>>> generator is one where the parts have static color options and the
>>>> user has to use print screen to save their finished sprite models.
>>>> Not to mention no animated preview, or in the next version it's going
>>>> to have a graphic editing program built directly into it so users can
>>>> REALLY customize and even create their own parts directly from
>>>> scratch.
>>
>>> Chop, chop then! I can't wait for the next black page instalment.
>>
>> Again, it's not for you.
>>
>>>> The only thing HTML is good for is displaying simple pictures and
>>>> text...and it's not even very good at that. Flash supports 32 bit
>>>> alpha transparent JPEGs fer fuck sake! Not that you have any fuckin
>>>> clue as to what those are, why you would want to use them and most
>>>> importantly HOW you would use them. See that really is the basis of
>>>> everything you're babbling...ignorance.
>>
>>> Since when did JPEGs have alpha channels? Flash supports sprites that
>>> are generated from JPEGs and then have an alpha channel applied.
>>>
>>> Don't even think about mentioning JPEG2000s - no one uses them and they
>>> will die away slowly like the internet fad that you are.
>>
>> Refer to this post:
>> :
>> http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12516-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=34733&messageID=639224&start=-9994
>>
>> "Support of 32 bit JPEGs (more specifically you can import 32 PNG
>> files, use JPEG compression on them and Flash will keep the
>> transparency layer intact)."
>
> Hence not supporting alpha channel JPEGS (whatever they may be). You can
> infact do exactly the same in PHP, saving it as a GD bitmap after
> importing JPEGs
>
>>>> Of course it's slow you retard, do you have any fuckin idea as to what
>>>> it's even doing? There's a couple methods I plan to employ in the
>>>> next version that maybe be able to speed it up a bit, using
>>>> ByteArray.compress() but ultimately the speed issue is affected most
>>>> by the number of users who are using it, and, well, that's quite a
>>>> damn lot:
>>>> :
>>>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Well_That_Aint_Good.png
>>>>
>>>> You have understand, Shortsighted, I ain't runnin some tweenage muppet
>>>> fuck Pokemon fan site with 12 hits a month, collectively my sites get
>>>> upwards of around a HALF MILLION unique hits every month.
>>
>>> You mean, like HALF A MILLION? wow! My home computer could handle that.
>>> And yes I have stress tested way over that.
>>
>> *pats you on the head*
>>
>> Sure kid, sure.
>
> *grin* Let's do the mathematics.
> 60 seconds in a minute *
> 60 minutes in an hour *
> 24 hours in a day *
> 30 days in a month =
> 2,592,000 seconds in a month.
>
> If you get 500,000 hits per month that's
>
> 2,592,000/500,000 = 5.184
>
> One hit every 5 seconds! Phew, you work your quad core some hard!
lol. as soon as he mentioned that, i did the math in my *head* and
guestimated (rounding and such) 7 hits per second. fact is, dilweed simply
makes up shit and doesn't have the foresight to make sure he isn't about to
put is foot in his mouth. he assumes everyone is more stupid than he...while
assuming he is a jeanyus. truth be told, omh's iq hovers around 80 and his
behavior around 9 years of age. it is obvious to me that this 27 year old's
balls never dropped. it has effected every aspect of his development since
the time they should have.
:-)
>>>> But then your type isn't much for actually doing your own tests and
>>>> benchmarking. Pretty much you just slurp up someone else's bullshit
>>>> and then call it good. Free cl00, that method, it's the MOST CROSS
>>>> COMPATIBLE WAY of achieving that "portal" look
>>
>>> No it isn't. That's what _you_ believe is. Simply because you have never
>>> tried CSS.
>>
>> WRONG! Again, stupid, I've TRIED ALL EXISTING METHODS and I've tested
>> them ON ALL MAJOR BROWSERS ON ALL MAJOR OPERATING SYSTEMS...and yer
>> CSS way breaks on a whole fuckin slew of combinations (like IE on teh
>> Mac).
>
> No, you obviously have bad CSS skills.
yes, but then again from what i see of his use of flash, he has bad skills
in most other aspects the things he toils about.
> Every piece of CSS I have written
> works on all browsers and OSs I've tested. That includes Mac, Win
> 95-Vista, various linux distros, solaris 10, my pocketpc phone with
> Firefox, Opera, Safari, IE mobile, Opera mobile, lynx, Konquerer, etc.
likewise...omh just can't get past his a.d.d long enough to comprehend more
than drag/drop.
>> My way is the MOST cross compatible way that exists, I know
>> that for a fact because *I* actually tested it myself. I tested all
>> the other methods too (which is why I know they don't work as well).
>
> What you did was to start off with an assumption that flash is the best
> way then disregarded everything else. I can assure you that vertical
> aligning on lynx and all the mobile browsers works no better with flash
> than with CSS - did you try those ones?
lynx...as in, the text only linux command-line browser? i'm sure he won't
get the joke unless you spell it out. ;^)
>>>> (vertical and
>>>> horizontal centering)...well, most cross compatible next to Flash.
>>>> You can achieve the same effect with Flash and you don't even need
>>>> HTML code:
>>>> :
>>>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/Forum_Template/index.swf
>>
>>> So why don't you just go ahead and serve that to your poor visitors?
>>
>> I probably will at some point, it's the direction that I'm headed in.
>> My web design model continually changes and evolves.
>
> It doesn't seem to. It seems very much static with regards to the fact
> that flash is the _only_ design element you use.
it *does* evolve. it becomes even more specific to flash - increasingly so
over time. he will soon die a darwinian death. unless he lives off the
government, he will continually go without clients, money, food, shelter,
etc..
his lack of friends here and in real life are simply results of his feeble
mind, childish behavior, and schitz-o tendiencies..again, probably related
to his ballz failing to drop.
>>>>> 4) You send the whole lot of sprites to the server only for it to just
>>>>> save the bitmaps as a PNG. All that can be done in PHP
>>>> Your ignorance is showing once again. Free cl00, you retard, you can
>>>> alter the individual hue/sat/lightness of object parts and PHP doesn't
>>>> have any sort of prebuilt color matrices. You could half-ass your own
>>>> I suppose, but they wouldn't even be as remotely as good as the ones
>>>> prebuilt into Flash (not to mention they would be slow as fuck in PHP
>>>> and would eat up a shit load of server resources).
>>
>>> No actually they don't. I've done colour transforms in PHP and they can
>>> be made fantastically fast.
>>
>> Yeah, fantastically fast, limiting and half-ass!
>
> I'm not sure how you coded yours but all the stuff I've done with
> graphics in PHP is blindingly fast. More so when you use graphics as
> small as sprites.
funny thing is, i can use the gd dll's and use them with other languages.
they also deploy nicely. legally doing that with flash components...sorry,
can't finish the comparison...too busy laughing. there is none. i
digress...fast, cross platform compatible, uniform, and lightweight. i
agree.
>>> If you're unhappy about the speed of PHP go
>>> to C. Actually don't bother, you'll just end up crashing your server.
>>
>> Yeah, because that plays *SO* nice with other web language forms.
>> *rolls eyes*
>
> What was that? 'web language forms'? Please explain your terminology.
omh loves to make up shit. it's part of what he calls his 'art'. to the rest
of us (probably includes you now too), it just artfully shows his stupidity.
> The only languages you use are PHP and flash. Flash doesn't give a damn
> what you have on the server and PHP will happily run alongside C. Why do
> you think it will not?.
because, he can't get into c since there is no drag/drop facility to it.
hell, he doesn't even understand bits, bytes, masking, or shifting. ask him.
after several days of several people explaining it to him, he was calling
*us* idiots because *he* didn't get it. quite amusing.
>>>>> 5) The saving animation actually does nothing at all - it's simply a
>>>>> sprite. A very pointless, time wasting sprite.
>>
>>>> Again, Dumbfuck, yer ignorance is showing. The sprite sheet that's
>>>> generated is for use in the program RPG Maker XP. You import the
>>>> sprite sheets you create and then use them in your custom made game.
>>>> They're not for like fuckin avatars or some other kind of tweenage
>>>> blogger board hoo-ha.
>>
>>> Sorry.. what? Did I even mention the sprite sheets? No - I meant the
>>> stupid bar that takes days to scroll across the screen before finally
>>> sending the data to your PHP.
>>
>> If you're bitching about the time it takes to save, sorry, but that's
>> as fast as it can go right now. The next version will be somewhat
>> faster, I plan to use the Byte.compress() class and some other tricks,
>> but overall there is no way to REALLY make it uber speedy (or if there
>> is, no one has developed it yet).
>
> No that saving thing actually doesn't do anything at all - it is a
> sprite. I decompiled your crappy flash and it is a fixed length sprite
> that will take the same amount of time to traverse no matter what the
> flash is doing.
>
> Yes you already mentioned compression, something that will make a
> negligible difference to the speed.
>
> The way to make it faster is to get rid of that stupid sprite and use a
> real language - not ActionScript.
but that would be the obvious thing to do. he does things the flash
way...the only way he *barely* knows how.
>>>>> I read them more as entertainment.
>>
>>>> You're in the minority. They ARE supposed to be read as
>>>> entertainment, that's the way they're INTENDED, but there's just too
>>>> damn many retards trying to get themselves up on a cross these days,
>>>> tryin to play victim 'n shit.
>>
>>> Is that you reaching out your heart again? I think their may really be
>>> some love inside there. A trip to the shrink could help.
>>
>> A trip to the shrink wouldn't make me care about faceless strangers on
>> the Internet, sorry kiddo.
>>
>>>>> I now look forward to checking thunderbird for the new
>>>>> quips you seem to invent. And tell me, how do you have a verbal fire?
>>
>>>> You're not so good with the metaphors, are you?
>>
>>> I believe me I am. Just not ones that don't actually have meanings.
>>
>> Uh huh. You must have some kind of mental disorder if there's no way
>> you can imagine words having a fire like destruction to them. Where
>> the fuck do you think the word "flame" (in relation to posts) came
>> from, you stupid dipshit.
>
> Not from physically burning words I'm pretty sure =]
i told you...hovers at around 85. it doesn't conceive analogy yet.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|