Rate That Avatar!!!

Muninn · Postby **Muninn** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:49 pm

The fade effect looks nice. Now some of the others... Talitha - 8.5/10 (very nicely drawn, a bit "lusty" for my tastes) Ankaris - 7/10 (that's Kill Bill isn't it, not seen it, not bad though) Sir Jeffrey - 8/10 (not overly fond of pixel art [?], but it is animated)

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:34 pm

I don't think my avatar really suits me either. It's a bit...well, angry...

Ruedii-X · Postby **Ruedii-X** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Richard K Niner @ Dec 19 2004, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'>  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Ruedii-X @ Dec 19 2004, 06:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> First, PNGs can do... </td></tr></table>  While I agree with the fact that PNGs are a superior format, I will point out that you are criticising it based on future recommendations from the W3C. At the moment not even all the presently current recommendations are supported. For instance, the <a href='http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/' target='_blank'>SVG</a> format is older than the current version of <a href='http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/' target='_blank'>PBG</a>, and there isn't even a single browser offering native support for it. In addition, at least <a href='http://www.doctor-html.com/agent_stats/' target='_blank'>3.9% of internet users</a> use versions of Internet Explorer offering NO support of the PNG format (versions strictly less than 5.5).  </td></tr></table>  PNG support can be added to those versions with the Quicktime plugin. Also, those versions also have the Unitype bug mentioned that Outlook Express has, and the update is loaded with Windows Update, as well as numberous mime-type exploits. These are remote execution level bugs, which in Windows can be used to carry worms and viruses, and users of these versions could threaten the internet infrastructure themselves. THEY SHOULD NOT BE CATERED TO. SUCH USERS SHOULD BE TOLD TO USE WINDOWS UPDATE!! The Unitype bug was patched in 6.0 by fixing the URL source tracing mechanism to log the source before URL analysis. However, this does not remove it's exploit on other components fed hyperlinks from IE. An example of a external component exploit, repeatedly resurfacing, due to the Unicode bug still being in existance, just far better covered, is an exploit that effected all Windows versions, where one could use a special character symbol string to erase the "http://" and replace it with "help:///" and then use any of the various executable stacks in the help files to execute any program the user wished, or even download and run executables. I'm not sure if you've ever loaded up IE in a component level firewall. It has over 100 components that gain access the Internet, and can be accessed through Active X. Many of these components have system or even kernel level authority. Mozilla has roughly 8, plus plugins, and plugins are unloaded when not in use. You can see why IE has far more security class bugs. If you seriously want to understand why IE is such a horible browser, go to Computer Assosiates, and search for the generic term "Internet Explorer" under security exploits, the list is so long it is rediculous, and the number unpatched and denied by Microsoft is incredible. Internet admins should no longer cater to IE users, now that there is an alternative.

Richard K Niner · Postby **Richard K Niner** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Ruedii-X @ Dec 19 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Internet admins should no longer cater to IE users, now that there is an alternative.  </td></tr></table>  ...yet they will have to anyways, as 90% of users still use it for day-to-day activities. That number is way too large to be ignored.

Ruedii-X · Postby **Ruedii-X** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Jacob @ Dec 19 2004, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Wow, judging according to format, that was pretty stupid/misconcieved. And i repeat what Ozymandias already said. So let's all calm down. Richard K Niner - 8.5/10 (it's the one wearing sunglasses and smiling) Ozymandias - 6/10 (sorry, despite it being original art i don't like it too much) Ruedii-X - 0/10 (you don't seem to even have an avatar, or is that zen?)  </td></tr></table>  Yeah, I haven't gotten around to it. I've got to bring up a secondary firewall tonight. Anyways, I'm saying Lossless PNG will provide a file size of half of what it was, and provide no distortion. BTW, people should no better than to start a debate about Internet standards with a White Hat Hacker. It's also one of the few issues that I am not tollerant on, as catering to ignorance is a method to get the person hacked. Ignorance of computers can result in serious issues in society. Unupdated computers result in 99.999% of cyberattacks, 50% of the time it is not the unupdated commputer that is the final target, and 25% of the time the owner of the unupdated computer gets inadvertantly blamed.

Ruedii-X · Postby **Ruedii-X** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Richard K Niner @ Dec 19 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'>  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Ruedii-X @ Dec 19 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Internet admins should no longer cater to IE users, now that there is an alternative. </td></tr></table>  ...yet they will have to anyways, as 90% of users still use it for day-to-day activities. That number is way too large to be ignored.  </td></tr></table>  Actually the number is down to 60% over the period of the past 10 months it dropped by 30% It was a contribution of the release of FireFox 1.0, the push of Earthlink and AOL of users towards Netscape from IE, and Apple's stopping of all support for IE for Mac.

Richard K Niner · Postby **Richard K Niner** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:08 pm

Actually, there is no specific number available, but most mainstream sites report it as still being just below 90%. Where did you get your number? BTW, 60% is still too large to be ignored!

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:10 pm

SirJeffrey - 8/10 Ooh, the floating is cool. It's a nice subtle animation, and not at all spastic in the effort. Ozymandias - 7/10 I like the drawing, but it doesn't exactly suit you. Richard K Niner - 10/10 I love the way you rotate your avatar use here, and the sunglasses one just happened to pop in just before I made the post.. I like the shades, and that suit works out great. Ruedii-X - 0/10 For someone who is being so picky about image formats for avatars, you have yet to include one yourself. By the way, as far as image quality is concerned, PNG is overkill for the limited color palette of Jacob's greyscale avatar, as both formats are lossless at 256 colors. As far as file sizes are concerned, the 20k cap makes that issue irrelevant, unless you are trying to push the envelope on detail. As far as compatibility is concerned, GIF is more accessible than PNG. By the way, how dare you try to justify PNG over GIF by comparing filesizes after you convert the 256 color GIF to a 16-color PNG? Honestly, if you are willing to adjust the palette and use antialiasing, you will reduce the file size on either format. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but this kind of nit-picking does not promote good will.

Ruedii-X · Postby **Ruedii-X** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:03 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Tavis @ Dec 20 2004, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> SirJeffrey - 8/10 Ooh, the floating is cool. It's a nice subtle animation, and not at all spastic in the effort. Ozymandias - 7/10 I like the drawing, but it doesn't exactly suit you. Richard K Niner - 10/10 I love the way you rotate your avatar use here, and the sunglasses one just happened to pop in just before I made the post.. I like the shades, and that suit works out great. Ruedii-X - 0/10 For someone who is being so picky about image formats for avatars, you have yet to include one yourself. By the way, as far as image quality is concerned, PNG is overkill for the limited color palette of Jacob's greyscale avatar, as both formats are lossless at 256 colors. As far as file sizes are concerned, the 20k cap makes that issue irrelevant, unless you are trying to push the envelope on detail. As far as compatibility is concerned, GIF is more accessible than PNG. By the way, how dare you try to justify PNG over GIF by comparing filesizes after you convert the 256 color GIF to a 16-color PNG? Honestly, if you are willing to adjust the palette and use antialiasing, you will reduce the file size on either format. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but this kind of nit-picking does not promote good will.  </td></tr></table>  The 16 color pallet on GIF is ONLY FIXED pallet. This means, that there are only 4 levels of grey. Anyways, I'm tired of this discussion. It seems you're pretty convinced that I don't know what I'm talking about, and to convince you otherwise would require me to violate my principals and my ISP's AUP, both of which I am not willing to do, as the latter violates the former in the most drastic form.

Softpaw · Postby **Softpaw** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:33 am

/me counts the threads killed by Ruedii's arguing...

Ibun · Postby **Ibun** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (FelixSoftpaw @ Dec 21 2004, 06:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> /me counts the threads killed by Ruedii's arguing...  </td></tr></table>  /me giggles.

Ruedii-X · Postby **Ruedii-X** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:51 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (FelixSoftpaw @ Dec 21 2004, 04:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> /me counts the threads killed by Ruedii's arguing...  </td></tr></table>  *L* i can't stand people who don't know when they're beat. Anyways, you're avitar I give a 9/10, only docked for being a little generic in design. Sir Jefforey's avitar gets a 9/10, as it would be cooler if the pixals squares were lined up to an x-y grid, not to the orientation of the character. My avitar is still a 0/10 because it doesn't exist yet. I need to order that scanner SOON!!! Maybe I'll import a picture of tails from my Gamecube for the meantime.

Muninn · Postby **Muninn** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:17 pm

You can use a suitable image from the internet, there are quite a few avatar sites out there. And no one beat anyone. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

Arloest · Postby **Arloest** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:24 am

Jacob's avatar recieves 8/10 (I love Peanuts)

Maeglin · Postby **Maeglin** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:38 am

DragonWing gets 100/100, just because it's a Finnish band. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> Jacob: 10/10: Long live Schulz, classic.

Define Cynical Fan Forums

Rate That Avatar!!!

Who is online