Who the hell is "Signature Guy"?



  • Every now and then, I'll see this post in a thread . Most recently in the Big Brother MSN thead in the side bar. What the hell is it?



  • It is magical



  • Same with immibis and his follower bot. It has something to do with "signature injection" , I guess.



  • God I hope that image is stretched all to hell and your browser isn't actually rendering it that way.

    Signature Guy is the leftovers of a thread a couple years back where everybody demonstrated various ways to inject code into CS. Since the copy of CS on this server will likely never be upgraded, the hole's still there to be exploited.

    Edit: Actually I think Signature Guy is from *another* thread of people exploiting CS. But the one linked there is fun, too.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    God I hope that image is stretched all to hell and your browser isn't actually rendering it that way.

    Signature Guy is the leftovers of a thread a couple years back where everybody demonstrated various ways to inject code into CS. Since the copy of CS on this server will likely never be upgraded, the hole's still there to be exploited.

    Edit: Actually I think Signature Guy is from *another* thread of people exploiting CS. But the one linked there is fun, too.

    Hmm there is something wrong with that thread, I don't seem to be able to see it properly.

    Is that by design or is either my work, my browser or CS acting up?



  • @serguey123 said:

    Hmm there is something wrong with that thread, I don't seem to be able to see it properly.

    Is that by design or is either my work, my browser or CS acting up?

    Are... are you being serious?

    The whole point of the thread is that people are using CS exploits to break the page. And you're complaining that it's broken. Yes, that is the entire point. You might be better off looking at the source.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:

    Hmm there is something wrong with that thread, I don't seem to be able to see it properly.

    Is that by design or is either my work, my browser or CS acting up?

    Are... are you being serious?

    The whole point of the thread is that people are using CS exploits to break the page. And you're complaining that it's broken. Yes, that is the entire point. You might be better off looking at the source.

    Hmm, kinda, I though that they only talked about ways to break CS it and not actually making a broken thread, it was not clear to me.

    That is why I asked if it was broken by design or not, perhaps I overthinked this

     



  • @serguey123 said:

    Hmm, kinda, I though that they only talked about ways to break CS it and not actually making a broken thread
     

    Don't show, but tell;)



  •  What's really sad is when I first saw that fake post with the nonsense data on the left column, I automatically thought it was par for the course for CS WTF blunders. Then I realized it's the result of just another CS blunder.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    God I hope that image is stretched all to hell and your browser isn't actually rendering it that way.
     

    When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true. I did a bad size adjustment so it wouldn't eat the entire screen.

    Though I do use some Stylish scripts on the forums. I thin the user-area of the posts to 100px and drop the font size. At work I'm reading on a 1080x1920 monitor. I zoom it in quite a bit to make the posts readible, but the sidebar grows too.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Edit: Actually I think Signature Guy is from another thread of people exploiting CS. But the one linked there is fun, too.
    I can't remember the exact details but it started with someone figuring out how to put stuff in a signature that would create another post below theirs.  Or something like that.

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    I can't remember the exact details but it started with someone figuring out how to put stuff in a signature that would create another post below theirs.
    Ask immibis. Maybe he wasn't the first here, I don't know, but he used to do just that.



  • @toshir0 said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    I can't remember the exact details but it started with someone figuring out how to put stuff in a signature that would create another post below theirs.
    Ask immibis. Maybe he wasn't the first here, I don't know, but he used to do just that.

     

    Quietust was the first person I saw with Signature Guy e.g. http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/24462/255893.aspx#255893

     



  • @RTapeLoadingError said:

    @toshir0 said:
    @El_Heffe said:
    I can't remember the exact details but it started with someone figuring out how to put stuff in a signature that would create another post below theirs.
    Ask immibis. Maybe he wasn't the first here, I don't know, but he used to do just that.

    Quietust was the first person I saw with Signature Guy e.g. http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/24462/255893.aspx#255893
     

    I took me a while to figure out what people were talking about.  The Signature Guy posts don't show up if you have your profile set to not show signatures.

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I thin the user-area of the posts to 100px and drop the font size. At work I'm reading on a 1080x1920 monitor. I zoom it in quite a bit to make the posts readible, but the sidebar grows too.
     

    Using firefox? Then zoom text-only.

    Full page zoom is useless in most cases. I only use it on certain comics.



  • @dhromed said:

    Using firefox? Then zoom text-only.

    Full page zoom is useless in most cases. I only use it on certain comics.

     

    Comics, though, are the other reason I use the zoom.

    Not that I read them on my work machine. Of course not.



  • I should probably automate the image upscaling with greasemonkey. Switching the zoom system gets tiresome.



  • @dhromed said:

    I should probably automate the image upscaling with greasemonkey. Switching the zoom system gets tiresome.

    What browser?

    Chrome remembers zoom level by domain. Set it and forget it.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    What browser?

    Chrome remembers zoom level by domain. Set it and forget it.

     

    FFX4, and same behaviour, and it's lovely, of course.

    I mean that the coarse zoom steps aren't sufficient for me. The ideal situation is where I upscale the comic image to fit exactly to the left and right edge of my window, and using zoom for that isn't the right way to go. If I use about:config to increase the zoom steps' resolution to smaller increments, I lose the ability to zoom quickly, and it would still not be perfect.

    So foregoing zoom and just scaling the relevant image per-domain is the better way.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    I mean that the coarse zoom steps aren't sufficient for me. The ideal situation is where I upscale the comic image to fit exactly to the left and right edge of my window, and using zoom for that isn't the right way to go. If I use about:config to increase the zoom steps' resolution to smaller increments, I lose the ability to zoom quickly, and it would still not be perfect.

    But then you resize the window and ALL IS LOST!

    Seriously, maybe you can just learn to live with it being a dozen or so pixels off. Sounds easier in the long run. And short run. And medium run.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    But then you resize the window and ALL IS LOST!

    Why would I resize a window? I always maximize apps.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    But then you resize the window and ALL IS LOST!

    Why would I resize a window? I always maximize apps.

     

    Browsers look like shit maximized. Why would you maximize a browser window? Visual Studio-- ok. SQL Server Management Studio-- definitely. Photoshop-- I can see that.

    But a BROWSER?

    What a waste of a perfectly good monitor.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Browsers look like shit maximized. Why would you maximize a browser window?
     

    You must mean a widescreen. I don't have a widescreen.

    My 4:3 CRT at home runs 13601024, and has the bookmarks sidebar open. At work it's 12001600 portrait.

    Every page looks just fine. :)



  • @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Browsers look like shit maximized. Why would you maximize a browser window?
     

    You must mean a widescreen. I don't have a widescreen.

    My 4:3 CRT at home runs 13601024, and has the bookmarks sidebar open. At work it's 12001600 portrait.

    Every page looks just fine. :)

    I see, between the sidebar and your tiny-ass horizontal resolution, it works. But only because you've gone out of your way.

    Probably a stupid question because I'm sure the answer is "Lunix!!", but doesn't rotating your monitor into portrait mode fuck up ClearType?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Probably a stupid question because I'm sure the answer is "Lunix!!", but doesn't rotating your monitor into portrait mode fuck up ClearType?

    Huh. I didn't know that, but it appears to be the case. I've never actually used a monitor in portrait mode, so I'm not sure how it would work on other OSes either.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Probably a stupid question because I'm sure the answer is "Lunix!!", but doesn't rotating your monitor into portrait mode fuck up ClearType?

    Huh. I didn't know that, but it appears to be the case. I've never actually used a monitor in portrait mode, so I'm not sure how it would work on other OSes either.

    Well, you can set ClearType to "render fuzzy like Windows 2000" mode, but it... sucks. It's not toooo bad I guess.

    But, yeah, nominally ClearType requires RGB lines to be vertical.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Why would you maximize a browser window?

    So that more stuff fits in.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    your tiny-ass horizontal resolution
     

    I waste no surface area whereas every one of my coworkers with a widescreen has a fuckton of white space just doing nothing and being all bright. It looks rather silly.

    I do agree that 13601024 is on the low side, but my home monitor is a 19" CRT for as long as its picture is good (and it still is), and going higher goes make everything unbearable. I'd love to run it at 16001200, but then it's all just fuzzy and tiny.

    @blakeyrat said:

    doesn't rotating your monitor into portrait mode fuck up ClearType?
     

    You'd think so. I'd think so, too.

    But you'd be wrong. Looks just fine.

    Can't post a screenshot, obviously. We've done a thread [-hijack] on this before, and on every other monitor, my portrait shots look totally pink.



  • @dhromed said:

    I waste no surface area whereas every one of my coworkers with a widescreen has a fuckton of white space just doing nothing and being all bright. It looks rather silly.

    Yes, well I also waste no surface area and SOMEHOW shockingly I have 2 1680x1050 monitors put side-by-side! GASP! And unlike your configuration, I can actually multitask... generally, IMs/Email/WebEx/Communication stuff on one monitor, and actual work on the other.

    @dhromed said:

    But you'd be wrong. Looks just fine.

    If there's one thing I've learned from this forum, it's that people who post on this forum don't know what "just fine" looks like.

    @dhromed said:

    Can't post a screenshot, obviously. We've done a thread [-hijack] on this before, and on every other monitor, my portrait shots look totally pink.

    But yeah I think I remember that thread-jack, so I won't do it again.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If there's one thing I've learned from life in general, it's that most people don't know what "just fine" looks like.
     

    FTFY



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    If there's one thing I've learned from life in general, it's that most people don't know.
    FTFY
    FTFY

     



  • @toshir0 said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    What is best in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!
    FTFY
    FTFY

    FTFM


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Yes, well I also waste no surface area and SOMEHOW shockingly I have 2 1680x1050 monitors put side-by-side! GASP! And unlike your configuration, I can actually multitask... generally, IMs/Email/WebEx/Communication stuff on one monitor, and actual work on the other.
    My home setup is presently 3x Widescreen 16:9 CRTs (didn't know those existed, did you? Sony GDW-FW900 and whatever the hell Sun Microsystems called their version). Intensely old, but I like them far better than all but the best LCDs. I can't stand TN panels.

    6912x1440 is INSANE, but I manage to use it all. #1 contains Real Work (either the IDE or debugger, or AutoCAD, or Photoshop, or whatever the hell it is I'm into at that particular moment). #2 contains either reference material, design documents, test environments, whatever. or is input switched to another machine. #3 is covered in shit like IM clients, Outlook, and live streams of touring car races. Sure, my monitors suck down 600w of juice continuously, but I can GET SHIT DONE.

     At work I have one lousy 17" TN LCD- connected via VGA no less.

     

     

    When I'm reduced to a single monitor, I tend to lose focus. I tab out of Visual Studio to answer an IM, and wind up trawling the internet posting here or reading Cracked because I forgot what I was doing and didn't have a visual cue to get back to it. The extra couple hundred bucks an employer would spend on a pair of good monitors for me prettymuch triples my efficiency. Beancounters here don't buy it, though.



  • @Weng said:

    I can't stand TN panels.
     

    Sigh

    Then don't get a TN. Go IPS or LED. Here, 30W.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Weng said:
    I can't stand TN panels.

    Sigh

    Then don't get a TN. Go IPS or LED. Here, 30W.

    Just more IT luddites, you have to just learn to ignore these guys.

    Obviously CRTs are better, because when they were learning computers in 1995 they had CRTs. They probably use BASH and VI too.



  • I still have a CRT.

    It still performs adequately and is not in apparent need of being replaced.



  • 1680x1050

    +1 for 16:10. I couple my 22in 1680x1050 with a 17in 1280x1024, works nicely. One's a TV so I can also see how the colours look on both (damn that contemptible NTSC-safe crap on a UK TV)



  •  @dhromed said:

    I still have a CRT.

    It still performs adequately and is not in apparent need of being replaced.

    +1

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dhromed said:

    Sigh

    Then don't get a TN. Go IPS or LED. Here, 30W.

    Yes. I could do that. They are in fact half the price they were the last time I looked. Except that I still need 3 - and at US prices, that's still $900 for no meaningful benefit other than the 'oooh, I'm saving the planet by using less electricity!' fuzzy feeling that in no way, shape or form applies to me. I've been saying for years now that when these CRTs finally start dying, I'll swap them for real LCDs. But they just aren't dying.

    Which is another interesting CRT vs. LCD point. Everybody I know using IPS displays, even the hugely expensive ones, has to replace them on power supply issues every few years. That sort of failure rate multiplied across 3 monitors and my unfavorable environmental conditions (110 in the summer, freezing in the winter) tends to invite the words "spare monitor" into the conversation. CRTs, on the other hand, don't seem to die. Just go slowly out of calibration (which isn't a big deal, since I own a calibration kit for these)



  • @Weng said:

    Everybody I know using IPS displays, even the hugely expensive ones, has to replace them on power supply issues every few years.
     

    Ok weird. My work baby is showing no signs of failure, in any case, and I've had it for almost two years.

    @Weng said:

    That sort of failure rate multiplied across 3 monitors and my unfavorable environmental conditions

     I get it.

    @Weng said:

    CRTs, on the other hand, don't seem to die.

    Just looked it up, and this montior is from 2005. So yeah, pretty good.

     



  • @Weng said:

    Except that I still need 3 - and at US prices, that's still $900 for no meaningful benefit other than the 'oooh, I'm pretending to save the planet by using less electricity!' fuzzy feeling that in no way, shape or form applies to me.
    FTFY.


Log in to reply
 

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