Diogo Ribeiro

To add more power to my rejection of claims I'm intelligent, I figured out the problem. There were two "<$BlogItemCommentCount$> comments" lines that needed to be replaced by the new code. It's fixed now, until the next Big Code Fubar. Thanks for the help

I was trying to replace: <script type="text/javascript">var a = <$BlogItemCommentCount$>; if(a == 0) {document.write('No comment');} else if(a == 1) {document.write('1 comment');} else {document.write(a+' comments');}</script> with <script type="text/javascript">var a = <$BlogItemCommentCount$>; if(a == 0) {document.write('[b]N

I am a lawyer.

For those who are knowledgable of HTML in general, I have a quick question. I have been tinkering with the HTML code of a site, and while I think I've finally changed it to my ignorant but happy heart's contempt, I can't seem to make a small change - turning a comments system's display from English into another language. The original system is basically in English but I want to change the display of "comment" and "comments" into something else. The portion of the original code that handled this read: <$BlogItemCommentCount$> comments I've replaced the line with: <script type="text/javascript">var a = <$BlogItemCommentCount$>; if(a == 0) {document.write('No comment');} else if(a == 1) {document.write('1 comment');} else {document.write(a+' comments');}</script> Where any displayed instance of 'comment' or 'comments' will be changed to what I want. Now the problem is that while I've tested this with dummy sites and managed to have them work, it won't work on the one I want (which for reference its this one). No matter how much I change the code it will retain the original use of the words in English. I've been told the problem could be solved if I placed the new line outside of the <MainPage> and </MainPage> or <ItemPage> and </ItemPage> conditional tags.... Only problem is, I don't know where I should put them. I don't know if this will fix it, or if there is anything else in there that doesn't allow it to be changed. Thoughts?

Geweldenaren Van Ver (Tyrants From Afar) iis a short CG film that was showcased at the 'Rocketclip festival', which is part of the 'Amsterdam Fantastic Film Festival' held annually in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You can access their page here. It's a very good, albeit very small movie based aroun the Festival's theme, Sci-Fi. Those who enjoy giant robots and alien invasions with a retro feel will probably like it. It's too damn short, though.

Reinstalling the game doesn't seem like the answer, because this happens with pretty much every game I can think of. Recently I've tried the Dungeon Siege 2 demo: same thing. And it goes the same way with Bloodlines, Beyond Good and Evil, The Sims 2, etc.

Will a part of a DxDiag information file do? If so: ------------------ System Information ------------------ Time of this report: 8/13/2005, 00:54:49 Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519) Language: Portuguese (Regional Setting: Portuguese) System Manufacturer: n/a System Model: n/a BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.0 Processor: AMD Athlon XP 2200+, MMX, 3DNow, ~1.4GHz Memory: 768MB RAM Page File: 224MB used, 2801MB available Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) DX Setup Parameters: Not found DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode ------------ DxDiag Notes ------------ DirectX Files Tab: No problems found. Display Tab 1: No problems found. DirectDraw test results: All tests were successful. Direct3D 7 test results: All tests were successful. Direct3D 8 test results: All tests were successful. Direct3D 9 test results: All tests were successful. Sound Tab 1: DirectSound test results: All tests were successful. Music Tab: DirectMusic test results: All tests were successful. Input Tab: No problems found. Network Tab: No problems found. DirectPlay test results: All tests were successful. -------------------- DirectX Debug Levels -------------------- Direct3D: 0/4 (n/a) DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail) DirectInput: 0/5 (n/a) DirectMusic: 0/5 (n/a) DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail) DirectSound: 0/5 (retail) DirectShow: 0/6 (retail) --------------- Display Devices --------------- Card name: RADEON X800 PRO Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc. Chip type: RADEON X800 PRO AGP (0x4A49) DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz) Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4A49&SUBSYS_00021002&REV_00 Display Memory: 256.0 MB Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz) Monitor: Monitor Plug and Play Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200 Driver Name: ati2dvag.dll Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6553 (English) DDI Version: 9 (or higher) Driver Attributes: Final Retail Driver Date/Size: 6/29/2005 04:02:16, 232960 bytes WHQL Logo'd: Yes WHQL Date Stamp: n/a VDD: n/d Mini VDD: ati2mtag.sys Mini VDD Date: 6/29/2005 04:01:56, 1241088 bytes Device Identifier: {D7B71EE2-0909-11CF-2B6A-0820A1C2CB35} Vendor ID: 0x1002 Device ID: 0x4A49 SubSys ID: 0x00021002 Revision ID: 0x0000 Revision ID: 0x0000 Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D ModeWMV8_B ModeWMV8_A ModeWMV9_B ModeWMV9_A Deinterlace Caps: {6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch {552C0DAD-CCBC-420B-83C8-74943CF9F1A6}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,2) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch Registry: OK DDraw Status: Enabled D3D Status: Enabled AGP Status: Enabled DDraw Test Result: All tests were successful. D3D7 Test Result: All tests were successful. D3D8 Test Result: All tests were successful. D3D9 Test Result: All tests were successful. ------------- Sound Devices ------------- Description: Dispositivo wave SB Live! Default Sound Playback: Yes Default Voice Playback: Yes Hardware ID: PCI\VEN_1102&DEV_0002&SUBSYS_80641102&REV_07 Manufacturer ID: 1 Product ID: 100 Type: WDM Driver Name: emu10k1m.sys Driver Version: 5.12.0001.3300 (English) Driver Attributes: Final Retail WHQL Logo'd: Yes Date and Size: 8/17/2001 20:19:26, 283904 bytes Other Files: Driver Provider: Microsoft HW Accel Level: Full Cap Flags: 0xF5F Min/Max Sample Rate: 5000, 100000 Static/Strm HW Mix Bufs: 64, 62 Static/Strm HW 3D Bufs: 64, 62 HW Memory: 0 Voice Management: Yes EAX 2.0 Listen/Src: Yes, Yes I3DL2 Listen/Src: No, No Sensaura ZoomFX: No Registry: OK Sound Test Result: All tests were successful.

"

That's just one of the end results of the problems I have with gaming in my PC right now. I can't find the problem. Everything is properly connected, especially the graphics card. I also have the latest drivers installed fresh. Basically the problem is that randomly a game will freeze, or hard lock my PC. Then I get a scrambled color pattern, from checkers (above) to clearly corrupted graphics and my only choice is to try to Ctrl+Alt+Del it so I can terminate the app, or just do a hard reset. This is the main reason I've yet to advance in Half-Life 2 <_< Bah.

Before this goes out of topic - more discussion fodder. I particularly enjoyed DarkUnderlord's post.

Atreides beat me to it. It's a tough situation. I understand and sympathize with Ender's frustration, though; I also seem to be able to fix or lend a hand when it comes to others' computer problems but figuring out what is wrong with mine isn't so easy.

Source

A slimy, busty scoundrel with jetpacks using tentacles? Whoa.

I'd enjoy a Star Wars CRPG that did not force me to play a Jedi. If that was my goal then I'd play some other game of the franchise; there's no short amount of Star Wars games that allow me to do this. Instead I would enjoy a Star Wars CRPGs that game me as much character diversity as the franchise itself. Let me be a new Han Solo, Princess Leia, Boba Fett or even a Jaba the Hutt - I'm tired of playing Luke Skywalker wannabes.

I can just picture Adolf reading a guide on concentration camp sims, then logging on to Treblinka and typing I pwn jew!1!!11, with all the letters floating above the camp. His account got so hacked. Doesn't it depend on what a game is poised to deliver? I suspect the concept of a completely freeform virtual gameworld would suffer if we were to force too many arbitrary restrictions into it, while a more straightforward, conservative approach to a gaming environment would eat itself if there wasn't a good level of moderation and rules enforcement.

1. By unofficial means of communication I mean communication that is based and takes place outside the confines of the virtual gameworld. To me the one, main difference that stands between the Germans' transmission of codes trough secret channels and the situation in EVE Online is that the second was dealt with in two different worlds, the real and virtual ones. In the Germans' case there was no kind of fallback, no secondary world where they could get an advantage, or plan one, nor where they could contemplate and operate reality from afar in some substantially different world. No German could log off reality, ask someone what would be the best strategy against his enemies or read a walktrough on how to beat them, then log in again and use that knowledge to succeed, or outright win the game. I think for both situations to be the same, or comparable, I reckon it would be necessary that there existed a second world, and that one of them allowed for the acquisition and use of information that was not subject to the same rules as the 'main' world. Secure channels may be acceptable, and perhaps even necessary, but I think they should be used strictly inside the virtual gameworld. This isn't a failproof method to prevent metagaming but it seems like a way to ensure that any communication, public or private, pertaining to the game remains in the game, not outside. PMs, whispering to a given player, or assembly points exclusively made for, and used by, alliance members come to mind. Without wanting to suggest a 1984esque situation, the logs of conversations in those three channels could be monitored for any metagaming activities that would be considered seriously damaging to the game and gamers; system admins could deal with those situations afterwards. 2. It was an intricate job, and I admire the level of commitment and hard work they went trough in regards to the game component; it would have been a long, arduous but brilliant campaign for able roleplayers to participate in. But this was also brought down by the apparent befriending of players in real life. Seems a clear case of meta and standard gaming that I don't particularly support. Interactions outside the game should not influence interactions inside the game. Not to this point at least. Meta garden-variety espionage. 3. Several players do, and I find myself divided but it's mostly a case by case basis. When one is part of the ranks of an alliance there are some assets one can gain access to. Extra citizens, money and information. These are part of the rules and are also a given between a group of players who willingly participate in an alliance. The information however, is a mixed bag. No doubt nothing would prevent someone from telling me someone else's fortification defense values, or army offense ratings for example, especially if they had encountered them in battle or spied them... But that is acceptable when done in the game. When you have people posting lists of their 'farms' (other players who are recurringly attacked and robbed of their resources multiple times) along with their status in some forum, this questions the use and morality of information. You already can access this info within the game trough your own work; is it really justified to expose enemy strenghts and weaknesses to others outside of the game, and let them be easilly obtainable with close to no effort on behalf of players? Personally I am not in favor of this. Well, the quick, obvious answer to your question is 'we ask them' but that doesn't always work. A player's motivations are what in turn defines a character's motivations. The problem as we seem to agree comes from guessing these motivations and expect the rest of the gameworld and its virtual inhabitants play along with them. Admitedly I have no ideas that would solve this problem. At first glance the best step forward in achieving this would be to have all the players consciously abide to a code of conduct - not all too dissimilar from the codes of conduct I've abided to in distant P&P sessions - that would have all players agree to roleplay and to do as little metagaming as possible (the cases of enforced roleplaying I've seen in some Neverwinter Nights servers springs to mind), but this is too optimistic and can't account for all possible permutations where gaming and metagaming intertwine. For the most part it seems we're stuck with dealing with these situations and behaviours as it's seemingly impossible to fully police these activities at this moment.

After I manage to get my computer game-friendly again I will want to buy San Andreas and Spore. Neverwinter Nights 2 is also a must but only because I have commited to develop a module for it. All else in my list are mainly oldies or bargain bin titles.

That's only because the boredom makes it feel longer.

Yes. No. I suck. R00fles! Seriously though, I think anyone could have written the kind of rant I wrote. I don't find it is particularly insightful or intelligent; it's raising more questions than giving answers, though that may be important as well. I'm more interested in other people's opinions than my own to be honest.

Lego Star Wars seems like a satisfying action game, with no great pretenses. The use of the Star Wars franchise and the ocasional humor found in the interaction with Lego-based environments and characters seems tp make up for a fun ride. Now, if only I had the time and money...

There never really is a way, wheter these situations take place in a real or virtual environment. I think this is one of the main problems with the concept of role-playing, more specifically with keeping in character, when it comes to computer RPGs. It's hard for gamers to convince others they're roleplaying a space pirate or similar archetypes when their actions can be easilly deemed as being against the game or metagaming. To me this situation in EVE Online is a great example of a group of gamers roleplaying their characters in the virtual gameworld. From their motivations, to their tactics, to the whole Ubiqua Seraph situation - all of it just feels like they are dedicated gamers and can deal with this kind of things. While it was no doubt disastrous for players on the receiving end of the well coordinated attack, would there be as much complaints if this act by the Guiding Hand Social Club was instead played out by NPCs in an add-on developed by EVE's developers? Would it be considered cheating or despicable then? It feels like a contradiction - it's a game genre that perhaps allows for the most organic changes made by players, but most gamers tend to frown on such changes. They want to activelly change the gameworld but are afraid of what those changes may mean to them. The whole problem is that unofficial means of communication (such as forum messaging, private chats or channels, emails) and unwritten game rules allow for this kind of situation to rise. As an example, when I have the time I play a certain MMORPG. No point in naming it, though it's basically centered around building our own empires, mine resources and train out armies to eventually become king cheese. One of the things several players do is set up personal forums for alliances. In those forums players exchange information about other players' soldiers and spy offense and defense, their gold per turn, miners, wheter these players belong to the alliance or not. This is metagaming, insofar as sharing information about users who are not part of the alliance (and therefore never consented to having their stats displayed) and about users whose offense and defense is too high for certain users to fight against. So basically I can log in a given alliance forum, be nice, scoop up information then find myself using it for personal gains, or for alliance coordinated attacks. I may even build a spy network to infiltrate and undermine a fellow alliance member's fortification and armies based on information he gives me (though I'd have to be careful not to be exposed). I assume a scenario where I actually sell information about other players' status would also be possible ("sell" in terms of ingame monetary resources, not real life currency). I am not aware if such things are done but I wouldn't be surprised. That would have certainly explained all the spy attacks I received after exposing my statistics to fellow alliance members; someone could be playing double agent. The thing is, these situations are considered to be morally reprehensible simply because they are being done outside the field of the game. Nothing prevents players from establishing alliances and communicate between themselves and set up attacks or somesuch; but all else can be dubbed metagaming. But just where does it begin and where does it end? How do we let everyone know that player A is a metagamer and player B is roleplaying a double agent? Perhaps more importantly, how do we make every other player understand and play along with the differences, to make them sacrifice themselves for a given idea of roleplaying and of virtual co-existence? It seems to me that the more one tries to put the RPG back into MMORPG the more hassle one finds.

The game caps at level 50; however you get a total of 64 character points to spend. There's also a quest that involves the gods of Arcanum and a major blessing to the main character, but I think you should try it out some time later. If you feel like cheating there is a hack made for the game which bumps the level cap to level 127. If you're interested, click me.

ZOMG rate me!

While Arcanum's skill points penalizes players for spreading their points too thinly I consider it a plus as it incentivates replayability, though its not without fault for being perhaps too penalizing. It could be argued that the penalty is necessary to maintain some balance while simultaneously enforcing the dicothomy between magic and technology. With more skill points available to the player I suspect the system would eventually allow for characters to become equally proficient in both technology and magic, and any penalties between using both might have been sufficiently mitigated to put to waste the whole idea of opposing forces. I think a total of 64 skill points seems like a well rounded number but it depends on what a player is after. I'd be lying if I said I never felt like one or other character of mine felt incomplete and just a couple of points away from being what I had planned; but most of the time the amount of points fit like a glove. However I don't think Fallout was necessarily better because I found one of the problems with both Fallout games, particularly with the sequel because of the higher level range possible to attain, was that character diversity was skewed because there were too many chances to make a jack of all trades that wasn't harmed because of spreading points too thinly. This was mostly due to being able to level up more intensively than in the prequel as the time limit wasn't as severe, and because of a handfull of elements that could permanently bolster character stats (skill books, operations, special chips, trainers).

Quite. I find it terrible that she claimed the people around her supported that change in her and say she's great the way she is now.