Recent Posts

8401

Best E-mail Client / Re: The Bat is nice BUT... MAJOR omission no HTML

« Last post by f0dder on July 29, 2006, 09:08 AM »

NO HTML IMAGES INLINE is an unbelievable ommission, unfathomable that ANY email client, let alone one with such an array of features, would miss this BASIC ability.

Security as well as privacy feature.

autocomplete when typing in addresses is very slow, i have finished typing "john smith" and press SEND before it gives suggestions.

It's not slow, it just has a pause after you stop typing, to avoid auto-suggestions popping up all the time. The delay *is* a bit longish though, and I didn't find a way to tweak it within a minute of looking through the UI.

inbox goes bold when messages arrive, but no # to say how many new/unread messages in the folder

See attached image

like the web forum I belong to allows users to reply to messages which are sent to our POP addresses, this works with OE an Thunderbird, but with the bat I get a message back saying "The message was empty, please fill in the message field"

Sounds weird - most likely a problem with the forum software, not The Bat.

This, and the lack of HTML makes it unuseable.

The Bat does support HTML - but uses it's own internal safe renderer. I tend to set it to plaintext-only anyway, I loathe HTML mails.

8402

Living Room / Re: Favorite viral video or short film clip?

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 06:52 PM »

mouser: Nice, that "craziest" scrabble thing was very good.

A Perfect Circle... their first two albums were good, then it got way too political. Nice that Maynard got back and focused on Tool again.

8403

Living Room / Re: filedestructor - a purposeful file corruption tool..

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 06:38 PM »

Heh.

A few times, I've taken some 4-page doc I'd written previously, then fux0red it up with a hex editor... saved my ass

8404

General Software Discussion / Re: ideas for perfect backup/sync software

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 04:05 PM »

Ok, i see your point and stand corrected.

-mukestar (July 28, 2006, 04:00 PM)

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, but many people forget those points - ending up with trashed data because you put your faith in mirroring is "sorta unfortunate"

8405

Living Room / Re: A Scanner Darkly

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 03:43 PM »

Christ, why handtrace these days? I would've thought people could've come up with decent automated routines for something that doesn't look more fancy than A Scanner Darkly does... 

8406

General Software Discussion / Re: ideas for perfect backup/sync software

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 03:41 PM »

Ahem

Also, Ideally I want a program that can keep a copy of EVERY FILE in use in the system.

-urlwolf (July 27, 2006, 12:01 PM)

-mukestar (July 28, 2006, 03:08 PM)

No, it is not.

If you accidentally delete or overwrite a file, or experience filesystem corruption, there's nothing a raid mirror can do to save your sorry ass. The only thing a mirror protects against is accidental death of one drive.

Syncing to some separate location means you have an "offline" copy that can be restored if you screw up.

8407

General Software Discussion / Re: ideas for perfect backup/sync software

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 03:00 PM »

Please repeat the following 1.000 times after me:

RAID MIRRORING IS NOT BACKUP!

-f0dder

8408

General Software Discussion / Re: My rant against php...

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 02:23 PM »

wysiwyg = { x | x != dynamic }

but while you're at it
can you look out for a wysiwyg editor for c and c++
i'm in desperate need of one, kthx

-gjehle (July 28, 2006, 01:43 PM)

I'd rather have a WYWIWYG editor

8409

Living Room / Re: A Scanner Darkly

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 12:13 PM »

Hm, it doesn't look like rotoscoping to me (the kind used in, for instance, the classic animated "The Hobbit" movie). The Scanner Darkly clip looks like something that could have been done almost automatically with a decent CEL Shading filter.

But okay, wikipedia says rotoscoping is now also used to refer to all-digital conversion. And CEL Shading is probably only to be used for describing a special rendering mode for 3D models (that gives sorta the same effect, though).

Can't see how it would be 500 hours per minute, though, if using mostly automated filters?

8410

fSekrit / Re: Post your links to places to read and add reviews of fsekrit here

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 12:07 PM »

No problem, philjjz, I found it myself through http://google.com/se...t+site:microsoft.com . How did you yourself find that article, though?

8411

Living Room / Re: A Scanner Darkly

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 07:22 AM »

Looks interesting - I wonder how much is simply a CEL Shader filter on real video source, and how much they've created by hand... and I wonder if Keanu finally shows some acting skills? (he was perfect in Johnny Mnemonic... 'acting' this guy with no personality, huhu).

8412

General Software Discussion / Re: Undeleting Software works in VMWare

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 06:43 AM »

Does anyone know of a good undelete program? And would such a program work in a VM workstation?

-Deozaan (July 27, 2006, 05:05 PM)

No reason it shouldn't work in vmware if it works elsewhere.

Btw., one of the nice features of vmware... SNAPSHOTS!

8413

Living Room / Re: How DC.com made me a donator

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 06:41 AM »

Same here, I've donated to a couple projects and registered a couple shareware products as well.  the way donationcoder changes the world ^_^

8414

Living Room / Re: George Bush singing "Sunday Bloody Sunday"

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 06:39 AM »

And for those that don't know what "Bloody Sunday" is, brush up on your history. Gonna watch the video in a bit, the idea seems pretty nasty (ie., spot on the sugar) to me.

EDIT: damn, that one's well done! 

8415

Official Announcements / Re: The countdown.

« Last post by f0dder on July 28, 2006, 06:38 AM »

 

8416

General Software Discussion / Re: recovering an incremental backup. Programs that can do the right thing

« Last post by f0dder on July 27, 2006, 10:51 AM »

Hm, even the old backup program that used to come with MS-DOS did recovery from incremental backups automatically, I think. Any sane backup program should.

8417

fSekrit / Re: Post your links to places to read and add reviews of fsekrit here

« Last post by f0dder on July 27, 2006, 10:46 AM »

Hehe AbteriX, as if - wouldn't mind getting bought out for a couple million dollars though

I guess this article might be what philjjz is referring to? Pretty vague and no links, but still - my app is mentioned at microsoft, cool

8418

Borland C++ Builder Contest / Re: How to compile a program to not need any external dll and bpl files

« Last post by f0dder on July 27, 2006, 10:10 AM »

I don't want to bring things off topic but I've a question related to distributing runtimes along with a program:- Will you always get the advantage of processes being able to share DLLs or those it only work if the DLLs are placed in the System directory?

-Eóin (July 27, 2006, 07:02 AM)

I'm afraid it will only share files that have the same image path (whether that be %SYSTEMROOT%\System32, or "common files") - but it's an interesting question and I don't have the definitive answer for that. Somebody should ask the sysinternals guys

8419

Borland C++ Builder Contest / Re: How to compile a program to not need any external dll and bpl files

« Last post by f0dder on July 27, 2006, 05:02 AM »

I would personally recommend *against* this static linkage - it gives extreme code bloat, makes it impossible for processes to share the memory-hit of the runtime, etc.

Yes, it's a little more bother to redistribute the runtimes, but it's worth it. At the very least offer both static and dynamic linked versions...

8420

Official Announcements / Re: The countdown.

« Last post by f0dder on July 26, 2006, 03:30 PM »

It's the final countdown!

8421

Developer's Corner / Re: The Top 10 Ways to get screwed by the "C" programming language - old but good

« Last post by f0dder on July 26, 2006, 03:29 PM »

But... "if(a=b) c;" could make sense in "if(a=malloc(FOOBAR) c;"... if you like terse code anyway.

8422

fSekrit / Re: Post your links to places to read and add reviews of fsekrit here

« Last post by f0dder on July 26, 2006, 01:11 PM »

W00t?

That's a joke, right? - got a link to the whitepaper?

I don't have any experience with PDA programming, but I think there's an emulator somewhere... hmm. First priority is getting a new release done with some fixes, though.

8423

Living Room / Re: The latest japanese game

« Last post by f0dder on July 26, 2006, 06:29 AM »

Ooooh Myyyy Gaaawed!

*tears rolling down cheeks*

8424

General Software Discussion / Re: Article about new windows drive imaging technology from ms

« Last post by f0dder on July 26, 2006, 03:03 AM »

Nothign revolutionary, really - they're basically just making an archive file instead of a "real" image.

This means it'll be slower (creating a lot of new files is a lot slower than simply writing sectors) and (unless they apply RAR-style "solid compression") have bigger images than sector-based copies.

8425

Developer's Corner / Re: The Top 10 Ways to get screwed by the "C" programming language - old but good

« Last post by f0dder on July 26, 2006, 02:54 AM »

Some comments:

#4 should only bite you if you have a bad coding style, or use poorly designed libraries.

#5 will be caught by any decent compiler.

#6 is a bit nasty - endianness is a bother. I believe the standard (or some other "authorative" text), anyway, says something to the effect of "bitfields should only be used for in-memory representations".

#7 is poor coding style and trying to be "cute" rather than clear.

#9 macros are bad - but yeah, C is very permissive.

#10 will be caught by any decent compiler.

#11 looks a bit nasty... but so does the code.

#13 C++ rectifies this somewhat with namespaces. Too bad there's so much legacy code, and too bad #define macros are used for these things (the preprocessor knows nothing about scope, let alone namespaces).

#14 that's the price you pay for trying to use optimal machine-native int size. Go by what the standard says about integer types, and define your own typedefs for when you need specific sizes.

#15 speed over safety... you can always make up your own bounds-checked stuff if you need it. Or move to C++ STL containers.

#16 octal numbers in C suck. They should have made "0o" like there's "0x". Of course in some fonts that will look utterly stupid, but then again, so are those fonts

#17 I agree on that too. IMHO chars should have been unsigned, or perhaps there should have been no "neutral-sounding" types, requiring "sint/uint", "schar/uchar", etc...