At 10/8/04 04:06 PM, Pilot-Doofy wrote: I think you're about 3 months late dude.

He's actually referring to the review submission form, rather than the pop that contains all of the reviews for you to read. This thread was made on the day that that part of the review section was updated.

At 10/10/04 05:48 PM, kanootz wrote:

At 10/10/04 05:37 PM, liljim wrote:

At 10/10/04 05:35 PM, kanootz wrote:

Tom waits up until precisely 12:45 am every single day, regardless of his schedule, just to post that message every day. :)

No, it's a bot.

no need 4 sarcasm

There's a difference between playfully mocking someone and being sarcastic towards them. If I had wanted to be sarcastic, I would have left out the "No, it's a bot" part of my post. I was actually trying to prevent you getting ridiculed by someone else by jumping in there first.

At 10/10/04 05:35 PM, kanootz wrote: liljim, iz p-bot really a bot or duz tom just do it

Tom waits up until precisely 12:45 am every single day, regardless of his schedule, just to post that message every day. :)

No, it's a bot.

At 10/10/04 05:26 PM, phileeguy wrote: if they didnt have it people just might talk too much about those movies in the general forum

Right on. Not only that, but we check the P-bot postings regularly on the off chance that there is a movie that shouldn't have made the listings (possibly because it's stolen and hasn't been taken out during judgement). It also acts as a catch-all for the "Why didn't so and so get an award today - it had a higher score than the rest?" questions.... (Check yesterday's posting for an example of that).

The majority of people who post replies to P-bot's messages aren't regulars to the forums, either - and it doesn't go completely unmoderated, spam messages are cleared up reasonably frequently in there (not as fast as in general, but then again, P-bot's forum isn't that highly frequented (most people just click the links from the front page) and doesn't get nailed by as many messages as general does).

Yeah, you mis-read what I wrote.

God forbid that there should be ads on a site that you pay NOTHING TOWARDS.

At 10/9/04 11:48 PM, Crimson_Edge wrote: If you are willing to die in the place of another, you truely care for them.

Right...

At 10/9/04 11:22 PM, mighty_potato wrote: Exactly. I was watching the bonus features on The Empire Strikes Back and they said that when Vader tells Luke that he's his dad, they had Prowse say "Obi Wan killed your father" or something to that effect.

Yeah, they gave him dummy lines throughout the filiming - so although he thought he was learning the right lines, he was actually just wasting his time and doing a lot of pointing and waving, with lines (unbeknownst to him) being delivered over the top of his pointing and waving and other movements.

At 10/9/04 11:22 PM, Crimson_Edge wrote: You only truely care for someone if you would actually want to die instead of them. The fact that only afew people would actually die in your place is a sad thought.

Rubbish.

"Care" in my book is to be worried, or at the very least interested about something or someone. I'd say that consideration (which, I would term as part of care) is also a part of being respectful.

It's unlikely that you will ever end up being missed by people who you might respect, but whom know nothing about you (particularly those in the limelight, like your favourite musicians), but if the people who you have grown up close with don't care for your death when you eventually snuff it or don't respect it, you can't have been that popular.

As for someone dieing in your place (and that's the only reason you care for them)... Bollocks. Truly caring about someone = death? What trite.

AFEW and ALOT aren't words.

The person that the e-mail reportedly came from was probably not the person who actually sent it. In fact, it probably wasn't a person who sent the e-mail. Just part of the worm replicating itself. Anyways.

David Prowse did play Vader - in the sense that he acted all the scenes out (he physically played him) and had to learn all of the words. It's just that Lucas decided that he (Prowse) didn't have the voice he wanted for Vader and got Earl Jones in in his place.

In every interview I've seen with David Prowse since, he's not bitter about all of that. Much. :)

Maybe around the time that Modern Life Is Rubbish was released.

At 10/9/04 11:01 PM, Crimson_Edge wrote: When Princess Diana died, people were sad for a max of 10 minutes.

Man... I don't know where to start with this. I personally didn't care about that, but to make a sweeping statement like "people were sad for a max of 10 minutes" is ludicrous. There are people here in the UK (and those who visit from abroad) who still make tributes to her death.

James Earl Jones?

The guy who played Vader was David Prowse.

At 10/9/04 10:35 PM, DrDeath2k3 wrote: Ok, FIRST before you start to flame, here me out. I love the madness series and I find them very entertaining, but as an artists point of view, the animation and graphics are TOO simple.

*Sigh*. In your opinion. There is more than one person voting in the portal.

At 10/9/04 10:21 PM, Crimson_Edge wrote: If you really think any more than 6 people actually care about you, you are gravely mistaken.

*shuts down bbs*.

The author had problems with copyright issues. So he asked for it to be removed.

Keep in mind that if you're accessing the functions from within movie clips, you'll have to reference them by:

_root.AddHealth(10, 100);

And

_root.RemoveHealth(10);

or

_parent.etc

Etc. Assuming, that is, that you keep the control functions on the main timeline.

function AddHealth(this_health, max_health)
{
if((_root.health+this_health) > max_health)
{
_root.health = max_health;
} else
{
_root.health += this_health;
}

// Tell movie clip (health bar or text field to use this value).
}

function RemoveHealth(this_health)
{
if((_root.health-this_health) <= 0)
{
_root.health = 0;
// Go to delete scene.
} else
{
_root.health -= this_health;
}
// Tell movie clip (health bar or text field to use this value).
}

// All for testing purposes.
_root.health = 100;

// Adding health.
AddHealth(10, 100);

trace(_root.health); // outputs 100

// Taking health.
RemoveHealth(50);

trace(_root.health); // outputs 50

// Adding health.
AddHealth(10, 100);

trace(_root.health); // outputs 60

// Adding health.
AddHealth(45, 100);

trace(_root.health); // outputs 100

// Taking health.
RemoveHealth(110);

trace(_root.health); // outputs 0

Put into your animation as appropriate.

You can vote twice, but you only get the one point (if that) and that's based on your first vote.

This problem occurs every now and then if your temporary internet files have filled up your cache. Clear your cache, close browsers, open a fresh browser and try again.

At 10/7/04 11:31 PM, BillGates wrote: Well... I've abstracted the variable out of preference, it is more logical (nothing to do with standards), if I wanted to run more tests against the user_agent value

But this user didn't want to run more tests.

I won't need to type/compute all that crap again (eg, if I did what you did, testing for 'mozilla' as well as 'firefox' — it is a programming habit for easier expansion).

1. You're not computing anything. You're reading a string that's already been set.
2. With your example, you're typing MORE than you need to. Even if you put that variable into my example, you're typing MORE than you need to:

if((navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf("mozilla") != -1) && (navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf("firefox") != -1))

128 characters.

var user_agent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase();
if((user_agent.indexOf("mozilla") != -1) && (user_agent.indexOf("firefox") != -1))

133 characters (+ 1 if you include the new line).

My real point was the correct MIME type, dropping inline/hack commented code and dropping the obsolete 'language' attribute.

I find "obsolete" a strange choice of wording here, given that it still works in all browsers that currently support javascript (including Mozilla Firefox). Depreciated isn't even a decent way of describing it, given your comments below.

Eh? User agent is available as of Javascript 1.0. It has nothing to do with MIME type and isn't something that MSIE 4.01 and above can't handle.

Irrelevant. I'm just using the correct MIME type, as prescribed by standards. None of the IEs recognise the proper 'application/x-javascript' MIME type.

Awesome. Way to alienate the majority of the internet community. What you should be striving to achieve with all code (regardless of whether it always meets "standards") is to make it as accessible to all users, regardless of their browser and that (in some respects), is what I'm getting at.

I do not have your book, so would you care to elaborate and/or link to some reference?

Why bother. You'll probably come back with some "oh, well it's not documented in the Mozilla references, so that's ok" type argument... Despite the fact that the chap who created javascript invented these functions.

I've already conceded that Firefox probably follows more standards set by w3c than other browsers (particularly IE) way up in this thread. What you're not getting from my posts is that these standards mean shit to the end user - and by that, I mean the people who're parousing sites. They couldn't give a rat's ass as to whether the browser meets standards, they just get confused when they are used to having certain things work in one browser and not in another.

You have to accept that huge organisations like Microsoft are going to go off piste every now and then with features they create in their browsers. And that's not always a good thing and not always a bad thing. If Mozilla would include some of the good things that Microsoft have come up with (and other browsers as well), then everyone's online experience would be better and people coding all of this stuff wouldn't have as many headaches when it comes to more complex scripts.

At 10/8/04 07:02 PM, scottmale24 wrote: Hm... what other information are you hiding from us, liljim?

Eh?

At 10/8/04 06:09 PM, PotentPotables wrote:

At 10/8/04 05:50 PM, PacoW wrote: With more than half a million active users

Half a million accounts, not active users.

Most visitors aren't active users:

Total Impressions: 6,966,711
Unique Visitors: 343,473
Page Views Per Visitor: 20.28

We're dropping some stats from a few webservers in there, as well, so those figures (from yesterday) should be higher.

E-mail me the file and details that you would have to submit when uploading.

logo.fla.

At 10/7/04 10:46 AM, westtig wrote: oh yes...im watching the mods, and when i dont agree to something they do, i get banned.....real fair isnt it? im talking about liljim or someone with real power doing a regular watch

We do regularly monitor mods' activities. That's why we have access to all the ban reasons/messages and a separate forum to discuss trivial matters. Out of all the bans, I don't recall ever having a complaint from someone who wasn't in some way breaking the rules. And those complaints came from people who hadn't even read the rules. Like you.

At 10/7/04 10:00 AM, westtig wrote: Ive been banned once because i called to a mods attention of a spam thread, and because i told the bloke who posted the thread to stop doing so, i got banned in the process.....is this being mis-treated....u bet yr ass it is! Thats why am angry with some mods.

"dude this post was banned yesterday, so why are u trying again? MODERATOR!!!!"

I don't really see how posting in a spam thread is "Calling the attention of a moderator." They're going to read through the thread, regardless of whether or not you post in it. From the rules:

Posting anything within a spam topic is spam itself. You are as guilty as the topic starter. If you feel a thread is spam don't post in it!

Mis-treated? Or didn't understand the rules? You decide!

At 10/7/04 07:40 AM, macdeth wrote: too many mods. ruined. bye.

Same amount as last time you posted.... Which was to say that there were too many mods. And judging by some of your last posts, many of which are just one liners or even one word-ers, I'd say we still have a way to go.

I speak with TBF every day over AIM and know that he's a decent person who has the best interests of the site in mind. Those of you who are complaining are either in a bad mood because you've not been put in his situation with regard to the BBS or because you feel you've in some way been mis-treated on the BBS in the past (most likely because you've broken the rules in one way or another).

At 10/7/04 12:58 AM, BillGates wrote: Actually, it should look more like this:

HTML:
<head>
-- …
-- <script type="application/x-javascript" src="firefox.js"></script>
</head>

firefox.js:
var user_agent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase ();

if ( user_agent.indexOf ('firefox') != -1 ) {
-- alert ('You are using Mozilla Firefox.');
}

What on earth are you bumbling on about now? So what you've done here is to make a variable of the user agent rather than just access it directly? What sense/difference does that make? And if having to access an external file to accomplish something as simplistic as this is "progression", then I retract what I said about progression being a good thing.

In this case, using a MIME type IE hasn't learnt yet is irrelevant

Eh? User agent is available as of Javascript 1.0. It has nothing to do with MIME type and isn't something that MSIE 4.01 and above can't handle.

Hey, I'm not saying Firefox is perfect, perhaps it does need to get on the ball regarding ECMAScript, the W3C DOM, or whatever you were alluding to (assuming it is a standard or unofficial industry convention [which doesn't violate standards]).

What I'm talking about are functions that have existed since way back, when javascript was first finding its feet. These functions (in Firefox) have now been "removed" or ceased to work as they once did, with no other explanation that I have stumbled across in the Mozilla documentation than, "Not in DOM standards." And by that, I can only assume they mean their own revised/re-thought standards.

I have a book published June 1998, endorsed by Brendan Eich (creator of javascript), which contains the functions I'm referring to... So if you're going to tell me that these functions aren't part of any standards (or that they're irrelevant and probably shouldn't be covered in backwards compatibility issues), save your fingers the bother of typing it up.