Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/21/06 01:03 PM, Whabs wrote:

At 10/21/06 11:37 AM, elbekko wrote: I demand that every parser shall put a restriction on the amount of 'lol's in a post.

lol that would be funny lol but why a minumum number of 'lol's lol? That's stupid lol

lol

=P Not a minimum, silly. A maximum of 2 per line or so =/

Haha. Kurt gave me an Idea. My stupid school runs on school vista. I wounder if, I could hack it. Or Destroy it. I hate that program. It's too basic, and uber ugly.

How did they catch you kurt?

At 10/21/06 05:09 AM, elbekko wrote: Couldn't you just have put an if statement before moving the piece that checks if the move can be done? >=/

I've got a whole function that does that.
It returns 0 for a failure, 1 for a normal move, and 2 for a capture.

Then the rook method will check the result of it, and as long as it's 1, keep moving the rook. Once it hits a 0 or a 2, it stops and resets the piece to its original place. Somewhere in there it's not stopping the increment of my row and column variables and moves the wrong piece back to where the rook should go...

I'll post the source in a bit...

At 10/21/06 02:53 PM, RageOfOrder wrote:
I'll post the source in a bit...

The source in the first link doesn't work correctly in some cases. If you try it with the test board (3rd link) yo find a pawn and a rook are completely removed from the board, and another pawn is in the original place of the rook. It also has no implementation for a bishop ( same problem as a rook ) so just ignore that for now.

The second link works perfectly, but I'm not supposed to do the problem this way, it's too inneficient with all the copying of data from one array to the other...

Source with only one array
Source with two ararys
Test board

These are written and compiled using GCC on Linux, so I can't guarantee they will compile under Windows, but they *should*. I just havn't tried it.

In any case, if you can manage to comile ( gcc -o chess3 chess3.c ) then run it with ./chess3 < board6.txt

Here's a screenshot of my output...

http://img250.images..t102106140931co1.png

At 10/21/06 01:20 PM, novalyfe wrote: Haha. Kurt gave me an Idea. My stupid school runs on school vista. I wounder if, I could hack it. Or Destroy it. I hate that program. It's too basic, and uber ugly.

My school uses this EasyLink thing to access your files from home:
http://www.twgsb.org..news/view.asp?ID=163

You login with your school username and pass.

I e-mailed them saying how easy it would be to bruteforce the passwords and they took it down temporarily.

At 10/21/06 01:17 PM, elbekko wrote: =P Not a minimum, silly. A maximum of 2 per line or so =/

2 per line? How about 1 per post!

At 10/21/06 03:44 PM, Jordan wrote: I e-mailed them saying how easy it would be to bruteforce the passwords and they took it down temporarily.

Ya gotta love how IT admins @ schools don't know anything and it takes a teenager to point it out.

At 10/21/06 03:44 PM, Jordan wrote: My school uses this EasyLink thing to access your files from home:
http://www.twgsb.org..news/view.asp?ID=163

"Firefox web browser users may need to see a member of the ICT staff for instructions of how to enable use of this feature."
It looks n00bish :P

At 10/21/06 03:53 PM, Jessii wrote: Ya gotta love how IT admins @ schools don't know anything and it takes a teenager to point it out.

Yeah, they're always so retarded.

At 10/21/06 03:54 PM, elbekko wrote: "Firefox web browser users may need to see a member of the ICT staff for instructions of how to enable use of this feature."
It looks n00bish :P

Yes, they even use an IE only javascript function to redirect you to the "You don't have IE5" error page.

I included in the e-mail that it sucked for Linux or Solaris users.

Someone look at this for me please! I'm going nuts. I hate making layouts like this (not to mention FOR FREE). This layout isn't even close to being done but for some lame reason, FF isn't behaving itself. The whole thing validates too >:(

The link: http://www.fauxdreams.net/chaos

I'm ready to give up altogether (especially because the kids who are going to run the site are still so freaking clueless...) >:(

They're expecting this layout. I wanted them to do the images like they said they were going to but I'm rushing this whole thing because I don't have the time to wait for their lazy asses and don't want to keep hounding them.

I hate being ethical and completing projects like I say I'm going to rather than saying fuck it! (like I said a couple of weeks ago, if I offer to do something like this for free again, just shoot me lol - it'll put me out of my misery without having to put up with stress from people who are clueless).

Have you tried putting
* { margin: 0px; padding: 0px; }
?

At 10/22/06 05:33 AM, elbekko wrote: Have you tried putting
* { margin: 0px; padding: 0px; }
?

I've tried it but it still doesn't workand I have no clue as to why FF is behaving this way.

NM! I fixed it, now I have to center everything and it'll be fine. I have no idea what was going on. I know I didn't define the body at that point either and when I did, I just did a 0px body padding and it fixed that problem. I dunno, it's probably because I was/am tired.

Ugh, just spent over an hour making a PST for a Pascal program.
Damn that is a sucky language.

I just realised how annoying it is that IE dosent support trasparent PNG's.
How annoying is it having to use a javascript fix for it ?

Roll on IE8.

At 10/23/06 05:31 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote: I just realised how annoying it is that IE dosent support trasparent PNG's.

Took you a while :P

How annoying is it having to use a javascript fix for it ?

Not very, although it increases the dimensions of your images by a pixel or two (can be very annoying).

Roll on IE8.

IE7 supports transparent PNGs :P

At 10/23/06 05:43 AM, elbekko wrote:

At 10/23/06 05:31 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote: I just realised how annoying it is that IE dosent support trasparent PNG's.

Took you a while :P

I never really used .png's in the past so... =P

How annoying is it having to use a javascript fix for it ?

Not very, although it increases the dimensions of your images by a pixel or two (can be very annoying).

User has JS disabled ?
They get a terrible blue background on certain images =(

Roll on IE8.

IE7 supports transparent PNGs :P

Woah, slow down a sec.
What am i using then :S
Oh wait, IE7 Beta yeah ?

Whens the release date for the proper thing ?

ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

At 10/23/06 05:50 AM, elbekko wrote: ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

I actually dont mind it to much compared to IE6.
The've improved it in a hell-of-a-lot of ways.

Not to shaby in my opinion.

Firefox FTW though =P

At 10/23/06 05:50 AM, elbekko wrote: ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

Couple of days? You mean the original, not the beta.

At 10/23/06 07:12 AM, Storm wrote:

At 10/23/06 05:50 AM, elbekko wrote: ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

Couple of days? You mean the original, not the beta.

Yeah, IE7 was released on October 18th.

At 10/23/06 05:31 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote: I just realised how annoying it is that IE dosent support trasparent PNG's.
How annoying is it having to use a javascript fix for it ?

That's why I use gifs and will continue to recommend using them.

At 10/23/06 08:28 AM, Jessii wrote: That's why I use gifs and will continue to recommend using them.

Pfffft.

At 10/23/06 09:18 AM, Jordan wrote:

At 10/23/06 08:28 AM, Jessii wrote: That's why I use gifs and will continue to recommend using them.

Pfffft.

Not transparent ?

At 10/23/06 09:37 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote:

At 10/23/06 09:18 AM, Jordan wrote:

At 10/23/06 08:28 AM, Jessii wrote: That's why I use gifs and will continue to recommend using them.

Pfffft.

Not transparent ?

Yes, but you can add in the colours you need. :)

At 10/23/06 07:12 AM, Storm wrote:

At 10/23/06 05:50 AM, elbekko wrote: ATM, you're using IE6.
IE7 has been released for a couple of days. And it blows donkeys.

Couple of days? You mean the original, not the beta.

I mean the official non-beta, non-RC one :P

At 10/23/06 10:31 AM, elbekko wrote: I mean the official non-beta, non-RC one :P

Yep, it's all final and released. Last I heard, they're recommending all Windows users to update. Personally, I don't like it. I especially don't like the UI.

At 10/23/06 12:14 PM, TheDrunkMonkey wrote: Yep, it's all final and released. Last I heard, they're recommending all Windows users to update. Personally, I don't like it. I especially don't like the UI.

I think I heard they were going to do it as a forced upgrade to windows actually.

At 10/23/06 12:14 PM, TheDrunkMonkey wrote: Yep, it's all final and released. Last I heard, they're recommending all Windows users to update. Personally, I don't like it. I especially don't like the UI.

I don't like the fact that I have to open 3 tabs to be able to enter an URL -.-

At 10/23/06 12:46 PM, elbekko wrote: I don't like the fact that I have to open 3 tabs to be able to enter an URL -.-

I don't like that "Active X Control Blah" thing. Why the hell did they have to put that in the first place?!