Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kindred
121
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on August 10th, 2012, 10:06 PM »
In every season (of the new series) they have one episode in which the doctor has just a cameo and that focuses on something or someone else.
Blink introduced the best monsters of the entire Whovian universe, IMO... the weeping angels are, well, in a word, terrifying..
Even when they brought them back in the future episodes, they were still scary.
(click to show/hide)
The doctor's companions in the new series have been hit or miss, though....
Rose (season 1) good... the rets of the time, she's a whiny, lovestruck twit with no good plot
Donna - hated her (but then again, I dislike the actress)
Martha - probably one of my favorites from the new series - but under plotted and wasted
Amy - meh... she's cute - but they tried to make the show more focused on her and that annoyed me.
old companions:
Jamie - one of the few male companions... interesting fella.
Sarah Jane - probably the best, most developed companion ever...
Teela - kick-ass barbarian!
Ace - possibly the worst companion ever
Romana - cool... possibly a little-basis for River Song...
the other companions... well, take'em of leave 'em...
Blink introduced the best monsters of the entire Whovian universe, IMO... the weeping angels are, well, in a word, terrifying..
Even when they brought them back in the future episodes, they were still scary.
BTW: I have heard, in the new season, the Statue of Liberty is a giant, weeping angel!!!!!!
The doctor's companions in the new series have been hit or miss, though....
Rose (season 1) good... the rets of the time, she's a whiny, lovestruck twit with no good plot
Donna - hated her (but then again, I dislike the actress)
Martha - probably one of my favorites from the new series - but under plotted and wasted
Amy - meh... she's cute - but they tried to make the show more focused on her and that annoyed me.
old companions:
Jamie - one of the few male companions... interesting fella.
Sarah Jane - probably the best, most developed companion ever...
Teela - kick-ass barbarian!
Ace - possibly the worst companion ever
Romana - cool... possibly a little-basis for River Song...
the other companions... well, take'em of leave 'em...
122
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on August 9th, 2012, 09:40 PM »
start with Doctor #3 (John Pertwee) and watch through doctor #5 (Peter Davidson)
those are the classics.
Doctors 2 and 6-8 were water, IMO...
Doctors 9 (reboot, Christopher Eckelston) 10 (David Tennant) and 11 (Matt Smith) are all awesome!
those are the classics.
Doctors 2 and 6-8 were water, IMO...
Doctors 9 (reboot, Christopher Eckelston) 10 (David Tennant) and 11 (Matt Smith) are all awesome!
123
The Pub / Re: Bloc Madness
« on August 2nd, 2012, 05:44 PM »
Arantor,
Before I left the team, my proposal/push was to get 2.1 into beta July/Aug (still possible, thanks to a ton of work from emanuele!)
2.2, 2.3 releases would be dependent on the movement of SMC/3.0. If, as I suspect, SMC/3.0 is still several years away, then additional 2.x releases would be necessary, IMO.
Before I left the team, my proposal/push was to get 2.1 into beta July/Aug (still possible, thanks to a ton of work from emanuele!)
2.2, 2.3 releases would be dependent on the movement of SMC/3.0. If, as I suspect, SMC/3.0 is still several years away, then additional 2.x releases would be necessary, IMO.
124
The Pub / Re: Bloc Madness
« on August 1st, 2012, 09:49 PM »
it is the developer's equivalent of...
125
The Pub / Re: Bloc Madness
« on August 1st, 2012, 09:34 PM »
:) I like curve, actually. :P
2.1 was never intended to be ground breaking. It was intended to take 2.0 - do some needed enhancements, add some features which we liked and fix a few other things which were still buggy in 2.0.
2.1, 2.2 and 2.x in general are progress using the 2.0 codebase, no major re-works. That's intended for the SMC/SMF3.0 combination.
As for Bloc and Vienna - as good as Bloc is, he seems to have something like A.D.D. - he doesn't seem to focus on any project for much longer than a few months at a time.
2.1 was never intended to be ground breaking. It was intended to take 2.0 - do some needed enhancements, add some features which we liked and fix a few other things which were still buggy in 2.0.
2.1, 2.2 and 2.x in general are progress using the 2.0 codebase, no major re-works. That's intended for the SMC/SMF3.0 combination.
As for Bloc and Vienna - as good as Bloc is, he seems to have something like A.D.D. - he doesn't seem to focus on any project for much longer than a few months at a time.
126
Off-topic / Re: Smf out of the game?
« on July 17th, 2012, 08:22 PM »
I wouldn't say it's breaking the site... no one other than you seems to be having trouble, except for some lag...
127
Off-topic / Re: Smf out of the game?
« on July 17th, 2012, 08:09 PM »yeah.... server team is working on some tweaks.
128
Off-topic / Re: Smf out of the game?
« on July 17th, 2012, 07:50 PM »
yeah.... server team is working on some tweaks.
129
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 14th, 2012, 09:59 PM »
actually, Nao... I think that was directed at me. :niark:
and markham... yes, I generally think that most of humankind is indeed, incredibly stupid.
And yes, I am arrogant and even patronizing, at times. (just ask Nao and Arantor and, well, heck anyone who knows me)
As for their "right to privacy" PSHAW. This law has absolutely nothing to do with privacy. It really doesn't. It, like the stupid Homeland security stuff, has to do with people's PERCEPTION of a protection of privacy. And that right is regularly abridged and removed by the government(s). The governments just want to give everyone the perception that they are protecting Joe Public from the big bad internets, all the while quietly doing everything they can to violate those rules themselves.
And yup... I have an incredibly low opinion of humanity.
persons (individuals) are OK and sometimes even intelligent.
people, as a group, are stupid, unintelligent and easily led.
and yup, Arantor... I'm older than you... I've had more years to build up my cynicism storage tanks.
and markham... yes, I generally think that most of humankind is indeed, incredibly stupid.
And yes, I am arrogant and even patronizing, at times. (just ask Nao and Arantor and, well, heck anyone who knows me)
As for their "right to privacy" PSHAW. This law has absolutely nothing to do with privacy. It really doesn't. It, like the stupid Homeland security stuff, has to do with people's PERCEPTION of a protection of privacy. And that right is regularly abridged and removed by the government(s). The governments just want to give everyone the perception that they are protecting Joe Public from the big bad internets, all the while quietly doing everything they can to violate those rules themselves.
And yup... I have an incredibly low opinion of humanity.
persons (individuals) are OK and sometimes even intelligent.
people, as a group, are stupid, unintelligent and easily led.
and yup, Arantor... I'm older than you... I've had more years to build up my cynicism storage tanks.
130
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 14th, 2012, 08:19 PM »
Oh, I am with you on that, Arantor... it is always good practice to review and to be aware of what your site is actually doing (of course, most people wouldn't understand the explanation/description after doing the review)
I agree that having a statement like "This site uses cookies" is not a bad idea... and my user agreement usually includes a line like that.
However (and to address markham's point) "requiring" this crap because of some illusion that this involves privacy in any way shape or form is complete BS.
To address his other points... yes, these people are stupid. It has very little to do with their knowledge of how the internet works. They would be stupid, even if they did understand it... the fact that stupid people get to make such stupid laws just emphasizes the point.
And nope... deep pockets has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of groups and lawyers who would defend this sort of case and include a class-action suit against the government in the deal.
There are certain idiotic laws that have been put in place and are only there because people are too lazy (or have been idiotically convinced that this is for "their protection". Homeland security is one of them. Seat belt laws are another... the list goes on.... with this one added right at the top.
I agree that having a statement like "This site uses cookies" is not a bad idea... and my user agreement usually includes a line like that.
However (and to address markham's point) "requiring" this crap because of some illusion that this involves privacy in any way shape or form is complete BS.
To address his other points... yes, these people are stupid. It has very little to do with their knowledge of how the internet works. They would be stupid, even if they did understand it... the fact that stupid people get to make such stupid laws just emphasizes the point.
And nope... deep pockets has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of groups and lawyers who would defend this sort of case and include a class-action suit against the government in the deal.
There are certain idiotic laws that have been put in place and are only there because people are too lazy (or have been idiotically convinced that this is for "their protection". Homeland security is one of them. Seat belt laws are another... the list goes on.... with this one added right at the top.
131
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 14th, 2012, 07:22 PM »
it is all about stupid people who don't understand how the internet (or computers, in general) work.
Someone said "this site puts a cookie on my machine that stores my frequently used info for that site"
they heard "ZOMG, they are invading our privacy!"
I will not be implementing the SMF version of this, regardless of what the US does...If they feel like coming after me, I'll take them to court over it (and I'll win, guaranteed)
Someone said "this site puts a cookie on my machine that stores my frequently used info for that site"
they heard "ZOMG, they are invading our privacy!"
I will not be implementing the SMF version of this, regardless of what the US does...If they feel like coming after me, I'll take them to court over it (and I'll win, guaranteed)
132
Plugins / Re: Plugin Development
« on June 11th, 2012, 10:46 PM »
godboko, I think you may have read me wrong. I am all for hooks. Hooks make everything easier for the admin and especially for the general public admins who have less than zero experience with code.
My question was not on the use of hooks... it was on the reasoning of removing the file-edit capability.
I get what Arantor was saying... although I still think that having the ABILITY of direct code/file edits through the interface is a useful tool that should not necessarily be discarded. but that's just me... and I know that I am the exception to most things. :D
My question was not on the use of hooks... it was on the reasoning of removing the file-edit capability.
I get what Arantor was saying... although I still think that having the ABILITY of direct code/file edits through the interface is a useful tool that should not necessarily be discarded. but that's just me... and I know that I am the exception to most things. :D
133
Plugins / Re: Plugin Development
« on June 11th, 2012, 10:25 PM »
ok...
(and I wasn't suggesting that you did it wrong... just curious of the logic behind the decision)
I get your reasons 1-5... (although I think 4 is really minor :P)
I think that 5 is really the most important one...
1, 2 and 3 are nice (and good features), but really only affect users who don't know what they're doing. :P
and I know it's not theoretical... I read through your stuff and see that you've got it mostly working and working well....
I think SMF's new version of hooks can call files (although I am not certain of that) but the priority thing sounds interesting (and original)
(and I wasn't suggesting that you did it wrong... just curious of the logic behind the decision)
I get your reasons 1-5... (although I think 4 is really minor :P)
I think that 5 is really the most important one...
1, 2 and 3 are nice (and good features), but really only affect users who don't know what they're doing. :P
and I know it's not theoretical... I read through your stuff and see that you've got it mostly working and working well....
I think SMF's new version of hooks can call files (although I am not certain of that) but the priority thing sounds interesting (and original)
134
Plugins / Re: Plugin Development
« on June 11th, 2012, 10:08 PM »
While I greatly appreciate the thought of and implementation of hooks (SMF has added some 200 hooks for 2.1+), I think that you folks may be doing a disservice by removing the full-code editing capability of the package manager.
Hooks should be encouraged and/or required, where they exist and can be used... but having the ability to add your own hook into a piece of code or edit code if absolutely required instead of waiting for a new release is very powerful...
Just out of curiosity, why did you completely remove the code editing capability of the package manager?
(other than, people are stupid and can't figure out overlapping code edits)
Hooks should be encouraged and/or required, where they exist and can be used... but having the ability to add your own hook into a piece of code or edit code if absolutely required instead of waiting for a new release is very powerful...
Just out of curiosity, why did you completely remove the code editing capability of the package manager?
(other than, people are stupid and can't figure out overlapping code edits)
135
Features / Re: Login/Register Feature
« on June 8th, 2012, 06:42 PM »
I see some potential issues... what happens when a user logs into the forum with username "myname" but then someone logs in from facebook where they use "myname"?
but, as Arantor said, I wouldn't image this as a core part of it (heck, even the biggest bloatware out there, Wordpress only has that as a add-on)
but, as Arantor said, I wouldn't image this as a core part of it (heck, even the biggest bloatware out there, Wordpress only has that as a add-on)