What are you working on? v2

[Bellminator]

[QUOTE=andersonmat;22178991]It may take getting your tables dropped a couple times to become serious about security on your site. When I was starting, I made a few mistakes, I think everyone has. It was definitely a learning experience, because it didn't happen again.[/QUOTE]

Never again shall I not forget to filter user results or use htmlentities() in a public comment box.. :911:

[editline]666[/editline]

:devil:

[Spoco]

[QUOTE=turb_;22157032]Did you view the website and post the picture here on different screens?

My two monitors have drastically different colour profiles and it gives me the shits.[/QUOTE]

Well I have two screens as well and the other one is a lot darker (CRT), but I only used my main LCD screen to do the whole thing. And even when I take a screenshot of the page and paste it to some editor and put the browser and editor side-by-side on the same screen, the difference is there.

I don't get how this colour profile stuff works, but apparently it is all about them.

[IMG]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/7552/blogtest1.png[/IMG][IMG]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/425/blogtest2.png[/IMG]

Spot the difference.

I'm guessing the editor compensates to make it look like it would look on monitors with colors exactly like the sRGB standard.

[Crhem van der B]

Looks the same for me...

[compwhizii]

I can sort of see the color difference

[Snakess]

slightly lighter colour on the bottom is all i can see.

[chrishind10]

FYI, my login uses XML Xpath, not SQL.

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=turb_;22175311]OAOO sounds like a sillier way of saying DRY[/QUOTE]
It's DRY without the Y. Basically just Don't Repeat. Which is what you do by writing your own database wrappers.

[jaybuz]

[QUOTE=Spoco;22179656]Well I have two screens as well and the other one is a lot darker (CRT), but I only used my main LCD screen to do the whole thing. And even when I take a screenshot of the page and paste it to some editor and put the browser and editor side-by-side on the same screen, the difference is there.

I don't get how this colour profile stuff works, but apparently it is all about them.

*two images*

Spot the difference.

I'm guessing the editor compensates to make it look like it would look on monitors with colors exactly like the sRGB standard.[/QUOTE]

You should set both monitors to use the default colour profile. I'm sure Photoshop uses them, so that might be why.

[Dr Magnusson]

[img]http://errur.com/New/Uploads/292.png[/img]

[Maccabee]

[IMG]http://imgkk.com/i/w-k4.png[/IMG]
Does this seem macfaggy? I should really be working on a full site, but I'm just sort of making splash pages. The only thing is, if I want it to be simple I'll have to use those rollovers where you assign pixels in an area that are links. Which just seems un professional to me, but I don't want to make them separate images. Because I'm lazy.

tldr: Look.

[editline]07:21AM[/editline]

Made that little divider 4px wide instead of 2.

[:awesome:]

Imagemaps are bad ideas usually

[Maccabee]

[QUOTE=:awesome:;22189540]Imagemaps are bad ideas usually[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/ads/rating/tick.png[/IMG] Reminds me of the days when I made myspace layouts.

*shivers*

[:awesome:]

I just avoided the whole myspace abomination

[Maccabee]

[QUOTE=:awesome:;22189574]I just avoided the whole myspace abomination[/QUOTE]

I actually had a myspace layouts site. Simplicitylayouts.com. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

[:awesome:]

:doh:

[turb_]

[QUOTE=Maccabee;22189518]Does this seem macfaggy?[/QUOTE]

yes

[:awesome:]

Anyway I've been working on my website and decided to re-setup my blog
[url]http://tdoyle.me/blog[/url] comments are apprecieted

[Zayfox]

[QUOTE=Maccabee;22189518]Does this seem macfagbee?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

[Maccabee]

[QUOTE=turb_;22189608]yes[/QUOTE]

Good.

[QUOTE=:awesome:;22189628]Anyway I've been working on my website and decided to re-setup my blog
[url]http://tdoyle.me/blog[/url] comments are apprecieted[/QUOTE]

It looks like your copying the style of vladh's site very closely but worse.

[QUOTE=Zayfox;22189633]Yes.[/QUOTE]

Still my favorite nickname. Better than Cohoe. :ohdear:

[:awesome:]

Vladh didn't invent transparent content areas over pictures.

[Maccabee]

[QUOTE=:awesome:;22189697]Vladh didn't invent transparent content areas over pictures.[/QUOTE]

It's also the same font with drop shadow.

[:awesome:]

:hurr: no it isn't

[Maccabee]

[QUOTE=:awesome:;22189721]:hurr: no it isn't[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of that one episode of community.

[editline]07:39AM[/editline]

Rate me informative.

[Missing User]

I am currently working on a vbscript to automatically do wmi calls to servers and put it in embedded excel and graph objects in a word document.
Not only is vbs the shittiest programming language on earth, it also has the added benefit of having less than zero documentation. I had to wait almost two weeks on stack overflow to get the correct object methods to actually interact with embedded objects.
I am still missing a bit, so I put up a Q on stack overflow again and this guy links me to the msdn container for the entire office object library... (RAGE!!!)

P.s. to those of you who don't know, msdn(microsoft developers network) is about as easy to find something useful on, as trying to find a needle in a wheat field. :P

[turb_]

[QUOTE=Maccabee;22189743]Reminds me of that one episode of community.

[editline]07:39AM[/editline]

Rate me informative.[/QUOTE]

:wrongful:

stop shit posting or get the fuck out

[editline]05:55PM[/editline]

[QUOTE=kbutcher5;22189775]msdn(microsoft developers network) is about as easy to find something useful on, as trying to find a needle in a wheat field. :P[/QUOTE]

It's fantastic for .NET

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=turb_;22189838]It's fantastic for .NET[/QUOTE]
I will give you that it is a tad bit better documented, but it is still extremely messy and only covers the most basic of basics. (But then again for C# you don't need anything else, seeing as most of it is made with other libraries)

[mdakin]

[QUOTE=Maccabee;22189518]ok[/QUOTE]
mcfagbee, i like it.

[FSL89]

[QUOTE=Maccabee;22189518][IMG_THUMB]http://imgkk.com/i/w-k4.png[/IMG_THUMB]
Does this seem macfaggy? I should really be working on a full site, but I'm just sort of making splash pages. The only thing is, if I want it to be simple I'll have to use those rollovers where you assign pixels in an area that are links. Which just seems un professional to me, but I don't want to make them separate images. Because I'm lazy.

tldr: Look.

[editline]07:21AM[/editline]

Made that little divider 4px wide instead of 2.[/QUOTE]

The effect makes no sense. It looks like there's a lightsource from the left, but the shadows are below and the divider have the "light" side opposite from what looks like the light source.

I would suggest you fix or rethink that, and it may be nicer to the eyes, atleast for me. :smile:

[Almost Dawn]

[QUOTE=Maccabee;22189662]It looks like your copying the style of vladh's site very closely but worse.[/QUOTE]
Appreciated.

Your photoshop thing looks weird because the vertical line makes it look like the text is like inset with like a bevel or something but the shadow on the text makes it look spatial which totally fucks everything up lol.

[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("VladH" - cosmic duck))[/highlight]

[Maccabee]

[QUOTE=ShinyChrome;22190685]The effect makes no sense. It looks like there's a lightsource from the left, but the shadows are below and the divider have the "light" side opposite from what looks like the light source.

I would suggest you fix or rethink that, and it may be nicer to the eyes, atleast for me. :smile:[/QUOTE]

There is not supposed to be a light source. It is a sight gradient with a little noise. The divider is a divider, it's not supposed to have a light or dark side. And the shadows aren't meant to have a light source which you though was the corner. But you have a good point if others think that's how it will work. I'll work with i.

You programers/coders are always so technical.