Someone forgot to publish and insert map.



  • I'm just surprised they have that many maps.

    blimey that's a lot of maps

    I had to enable scripts and cookies and refresh it twice then view the source before I was sure it was real...

     



  • Looking at the URL it might be that they keep everything in one giant table, categories, posts, images...



  •  What were you hoping to find by searching "elite"?



  • @DaveK said:

    FFX
     

    Dude. Even if you don't like 4, at least upgrade to 3+ .



  • @immibis said:

     What were you hoping to find by searching "elite"?

     

    Fairly obvious, looking at the wikipedia articles he has open...



  • @dhromed said:

    @DaveK said:

    FFX
     

    Dude. Even if you don't like 4, at least upgrade to 3+ .

    I'm currently playing FFVI on VC because I've never finished it before. It's okay I guess; having played I-IV, I'm not sure yet though why people keep calling it one of the best.



  •  What an odd video you have on your bookmarks bar.



  • @Power Troll said:

     What an odd video you have on your bookmarks bar.

    It was this freely-downloadable sci-fi someone made that I thought I'd get around to watching another time.  I downloaded it now so I guess I can get rid of that, thanks for reminding me.  (Still have a south park episode I want to snarf next time I'm using a US proxy....)

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @DaveK said:

    FFX
     

    Dude. Even if you don't like 4, at least upgrade to 3+ .

    I have various other browsers around, but for day-to-day random surfing I prefer to use something that's locked-down-to-fuck and doesn't have all of the new vulnerabilitiesfeatures that the latest browsers have.  I don't want HTML5, web 2.0-rrhea, java, script or flash running 99% of the time anyway.




  • @Zadkiel said:

    @immibis said:

     What were you hoping to find by searching "elite"?

     

    Fairly obvious, looking at the wikipedia articles he has open...

    For some reason I got curious about the history of procedural generation in 8-bit micro games, and couldn't remember which came first, Spindizzy or the original Elite.

     

    BTW, I only left all those tabs open when I took the screensnap in order to see if it would derail the subsequent thread... ;-)  (Not that there was all that much to say about the original wtf I admit.)



  • @DaveK said:

    @Power Troll said:

     What an odd video you have on your bookmarks bar.

    It was this freely-downloadable sci-fi someone made that I thought I'd get around to watching another time.  I downloaded it now so I guess I can get rid of that, thanks for reminding me.  (Still have a south park episode I want to snarf next time I'm using a US proxy....)

     

    The acting... isn't terrible! Wow. The opening dialog is ... retarded, but it's no worse than the retarded opening dialog in Heroes.

    Of course the audio has this continuous annoying background fuzz... someone needs to teach these guys about ADR. Because, damn.



  • @DaveK said:

    I have various other browsers around, but for day-to-day random surfing I prefer to use something that's locked-down-to-fuck and doesn't have all of the new vulnerabilitiesfeatures that the latest browsers have.  I don't want HTML5, web 2.0-rrhea, java, script or flash running 99% of the time anyway.

    Are you really that stupid?

    "Goddamned, I hate all those vulnerabilities! Like... sandboxing plugins! And address randomization! And process isolation! (Well, ok FF4 still doesn't have that one) And that annoying "do not track" feature! New browsers are SOOO much more vulnerable than older ones!"



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Of course the audio has this continuous annoying background fuzz... someone needs to teach these guys about ADR. Because, damn.

    Oh wait, later on they have a pair of scenes at a golf course and a windy airport-- so they did ADR. And it still has a continuous background fuzz. Where's "The Daily Video Production WTF"?

    Someone needs to MST this. Why is it a "false" cover story when the satellite *did* make an unscheduled landing? And it *was* Russian? And it *did* have a nuclear battery? That's not a cover story, that's just a story. And yet the Homeland Security guy doesn't point this out when the paranoid conspiracy theorist "debunks" his story.

    EDIT: Ok I've seen the whole thing. My summary: It's a pity they didn't get real funding for this, because now if it does get picked up, they'll have to refilm 4 episodes to make it broadcast-able. That said, the plot is good, the editing is pretty good, the sound is terrible. Syfy could easily fix the sound, add a couple SFX transitions (it would be nice to actually see the satellite), maybe refilm on some better sets, redo the titles and broadcast this. This is pretty good. It really is. The acting is a bit amateur, but, shit, it's better than Syfy original movies already. It could be presentable for less than $50k or so, I bet.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    This is pretty good.
     

    Ok I'm intrigued now.

     

    goes watch



  • @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    This is pretty good.
     

    Ok I'm intrigued now.

     

    goes watch

    Ok, I'm thinking about this, you know who would be the perfect match for these guys? Netflix!

    Netflix has been looking into going into production, here's a property they could buy and have 4 episodes in the span of only a couple weeks, for very little cost. The episodes are about 10 minutes long for a 30-minute slot, and too short for a 1-hour slot, and cutting them down (or up) would pretty much ruin the pacing. But! Netflix doesn't care about that, since they don't have traditional commercial breaks or schedules to fit.

    I hope these guys are making calls on this. The real business of entertaining is wheeling and dealing, and they got something good to deal with. (Heck, that film "The Man from Earth" was made for about the same amount of money, and is a similar level of quality, and it was super well-received.) Wheeling and dealing.

    Fuck, and they need real downloads. What's this .torrent shit? You need to download a program to download their program! Convenient!! Christ, people, Amazon S3 costs approximately zero, please use it.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @DaveK said:
    I have various other browsers around, but for day-to-day random surfing I prefer to use something that's locked-down-to-fuck and doesn't have all of the new vulnerabilitiesfeatures that the latest browsers have.  I don't want HTML5, web 2.0-rrhea, java, script or flash running 99% of the time anyway.

    Are you really that stupid?

    Ah, I've seen this line of fallacious reasoning before.  "I can't think of the reason why someone is doing this" -> "They must not have a reason for doing this" -> "They must be doing it for no reason" -> "They must be stupid".

    To paraphrase Daniel Dennett, never mistake a failure of your own imagination for an insight into someone else's stupidity. 

    @blakeyrat said:

    "Goddamned, I hate all those vulnerabilities! Like... sandboxing plugins!

    Rather a massive reading comprehension fail on your part there.  Indeed, I hate all the new vulnerabilities.  Sandboxing plugins is not a vulnerability.  The correct logical conclusion, therefore, is that I do not hate it.  You appear to have falsely inferred that I was claiming that all the changes in newer browsers are vulnerabilities.  Not so.

    So, no, I don't hate the sandboxing of plugins.  On the other hand, I don't have any requirement for it, because I don't let anything run in that browser.  No script, no java, no flash, no media player or plugins of any kind.  So it would bring me no benefit to have it.  Therefore my attitude toward it is one of indifference. 

    @blakeyrat said:

    And address randomization!

    Fail again.  ASLR doesn't exist on w2k, no matter how new a browser you run on it.

    @blakeyrat said:

    And process isolation! (Well, ok FF4 still doesn't have that one)

    Then so far, all three of the points you have raised have been irrelevant.  Again, process isolation is of no particular use to me, since I'm not running scripts, java, flash or anything else like that.  The plain html rendering engine doesn't crash often.

    @blakeyrat said:

    And that annoying "do not track" feature!

    Yeah, right, that sounds really useful.  An experimental feature that requires as-yet-mostly-unimplemented co-operation from the server end.  I already don't get tracked, because I block ads and scripts and cookies and flash.

    @blakeyrat said:

    New browsers are SOOO much more vulnerable than older ones!"

    #1.  A constantly moving target is always harder to be confident that it's locked down compared to a static known one.

    #2.  HTML5 includes about a million new ways to breach cross-domain security.  You wait and see what happens with that.




  • @DaveK said:

    #1.  A constantly moving target is always harder to be confident that it's locked down compared to a static known one.
     

    This does not sound to me like a rational principle. It is contradictive and has insane repercussions. I'm absolutely surprised that you of all people would write this.



  • @dhromed said:

    @DaveK said:

    #1.  A constantly moving target is always harder to be confident that it's locked down compared to a static known one.
     

    This does not sound to me like a rational principle. It is contradictive and has insane repercussions. I'm absolutely surprised that you of all people would write this.

    You'll have to explain where you think the contradiction is.  AFAICS if you're trying to understand the modes and limits of something's behaviour, it's a lot easier if that thing doesn't keep changing its behaviour and thereby outdating your knowledge.




  • @DaveK said:

    AFAICS if you're trying to understand the modes and limits of something's behaviour, it's a lot easier if that thing doesn't keep changing its behaviour and thereby outdating your knowledge.
     

    For example, when you're trying to look for security issues in order to hack the shit out of the software, it's very handy if the software doesn't keep changing, patching and rewriting features.



  • @dhromed said:

    @DaveK said:

    AFAICS if you're trying to understand the modes and limits of something's behaviour, it's a lot easier if that thing doesn't keep changing its behaviour and thereby outdating your knowledge.
     

    For example, when you're trying to look for security issues in order to hack the shit out of the software, it's very handy if the software doesn't keep changing, patching and rewriting features.




    Like PSN for example...




  • @dhromed said:

    @DaveK said:

    #1.  A constantly moving target is always harder to be confident that it's locked down compared to a static known one.
     

    This does not sound to me like a rational principle. It is contradictive and has insane repercussions. I'm absolutely surprised that you of all people would write this.

     

    What he's saying is that he surfs a lot of porn and warez sites.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.