He didn't mean George Lucas. The actor playing (not voicing) Darth Vader also played in A Clockwork Orange.
Anyhoo, since BuddahBing seems to be absent I'll just be cheeky and post one since I know I'm right.
This one's for the geeks: EDIT: Ah, there you were.That's A Clockwork Orange, isn't it? (Who's the Star Wars actor BTW? Skimmed IMDB, and couldn't spot him/her. EDIT: Never mind. That was somewhat obscure. 
)
)
Last edited by wien, .
Well, to a competitive person winning is fun so I wouldn't say they enjoy it any less than other people. Personally I enjoy door to door racing with people of similar skill, winning is a secondary objective for me, but different people enjoy different aspects of it. I don't think even the most competitive person would race if he/she didn't get some kind of enjoyment out of the experience.
Now when people with different mindsets meet up (something obviously more common in sim racing than real racing) you may see some sparks flying, but I can't say I've had too much problem with that.
Now when people with different mindsets meet up (something obviously more common in sim racing than real racing) you may see some sparks flying, but I can't say I've had too much problem with that.
Me too. How realistic cars look when simply going around the track was the first thing about LFS that made me go "wow".
I know this may seem like a very unscientific approach to determining realism, but the human brain is extremely good at identifying things that look slightly "off" (danger! run!), either in behaviour (physics, movement) or looks (graphics). A physics engine that fugdes a lot of details will just not look as realistic in a replay. You can usually tell instantly.
De facto standards are useless since I can't look them up anywhere. Developing through trial and error to work around bugs in IE is a hugely annoying enterprise. (Which is what I do during those 40% I mentioned above) If it wasn't for the bugs, and there actually was some consistency in the way IE worked it'd be tolerable, but it's just a huge buggy mess. Ridiculous from the biggest software company on earth.
And with alternative browsers being as popular as they thankfully are these days, ignoring anything but IE is hardly an option either.
EDIT: To properly illustrate how bad IE really is, here are a couple of links to unhacked versions of a page I recently made. (Any links on these pages link to the hacked version. Add hacks=none to the query string to see the unhacked version.)
http://www.kjokken-elverum.no/ ... egory_id=2&hacks=none
http://www.kjokken-elverum.no/index.php?hacks=none
The additional CSS required to fix these problems in IE can be found in http://www.kjokken-elverum.no/css/ie6.css and http://www.kjokken-elverum.no/css/ie7.css.
Last edited by wien, .
Reason : s/failure/error
For me as a web-developer it's purely down to standards support. IE has caused me more grief than any other browser over the last decade by a hefty margin. It's standards support is completely worthless and is responsible for about 40% of the time I spend on the average HTML/CSS design, purely bacause of all the rendering bugs it has. It also severely limits the things I can do and the features I can use since IE doesn't support huge amounts of cool CSS features. If it wasn't for it's userbase, I would have started ignoring it years ago.
You can use any browser you want as far as I care, as long as it isn't IE. IE needs to die.
Sure, I do too. But only to people I know well and that know me. I would never say stuff like that to people I don't know, and I doubt you would too.
I would just prefer if people at least gave the new guys a chance before ripping them a new one (having a go at aroX is just fine, he should have learnt by now
). It makes it more likely for them to improve and start contributing to this community, instead of getting insulted and going to RSC complaining about the rude LFSers.I do. Quite like the current one actually. (Except in Vista where it contracts the blue colour that plagues the rest of the OS, not Mozilla's fault.)
I know I can (and will) switch to another theme, but having a horrible default theme won't help Firefox attract new users. To most people the visuals are more important than features to create a good first impression.
I think you'll find that was sarcasm, given the current topic and zeugnimod's posting history.
Then attack the post, not the poster. That's about the extent of my point here.
Gah, it's not really very pretty, is it? All the new icons are so horribly thin and flimsy. There's no heft to them. They don't really match the OS either, which they were supposed to, so I fail to see the point of them.
You walk up to complete strangers, question their intelligence and call the first thing they've said to you stupid in a fairly harsh manner? Sure you do...:rolleyes:
Which is obviously grounds for a good tar and feathering 'round them 'ere parts. What I don't understand is what it's supposed to accomplish? Is being a mean mother****er somehow more effective than telling him the same thing nicely? If you talked to people that way in real life, you wouldn't have any teeth left.
Yeah, a different AppData directory for the betas would probably be the best solution.
The plug ins should obviously be stored in different directories according to version, but I like the fact that it remembers my history and bookmarks across versions. I wouldn't be too happy if that disappeared after an upgrade.
In what parallel universe is calling someone stupid, implicitly or explicitly, not a personal insult?
I'm sure you think so.
And I don't disagree with it being a stupid suggestion as such, just the over-the-top hostility that's been prominent here lately I'm objecting against. All it does is create a negative atmosphere. It's perfectly possible to handle stuff like this without calling people names. People could even *gasp* not post in topics that annoy them (I know this is a completely unrealistic idea for some people here).Disagreeing is one thing, but personal insults are uncalled for. What was that about?
Aside from the fact that this has been suggested a million times before, in what way would that make LFS a better racing simulator? This is not possible unless Scawen does it, and it would be an utter waste of his time. If you want to "tune" (when did tuning start to involve bolting more weight to your car?), there are other games that already does that pretty well.
I wouldn't say it supports CSS3. CSS3 isn't even a finished recommendation at this point. It supports some parts of it that are more or less nailed down, but so does Safari and to a certain extent Firefox too. They're still one of the best on standards support though.
I actually had it as a ringtone long before it was sold as one(made it myself from the clip The General mentioned). Then the whole "crazy frog" thing started, and I quickly started denying I ever had anything to do with it.
Guess I missed out on a goldmine there...Read the first post, please. This is a known issue with the test patch you installed. Your friends obviously have not installed the test patch. The problem will be fixed as soon as Scawen gets around to it. To avoid such problems in the future, do not install test patches and instead stick to the official patches.
If you take any information on wikipedia as final proof, you're doing it wrong. That does not mean it's not a useful tool. Wikipedia very often links to the original sources for claims made, enabling you to research it yourself to see if it's bunk.
Dismissing everything stated on Wikipedia as bogus is just a stupid as believing it without question.
Yeah I guess... I just get the feeling some executives were going, "You know that Transformers movie? That was kinda cool!" when they made it a permanent feature of the car. Couldn't it just always be in awesome mode? KITT should be a cool car, not a bog standard one that morphs into something special occasionally.
Not that it looks particularly awesome in awesome mode either mind...
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG