In theory the flakes should come first . . . it is Christmas, after all!
GreenReaper
I agree. I won't even abide ads on the pages when I use Firefox, so I use Mozilla/Firefox Ad Blocking . Just make a userContent.css or open it up if it's already there in the Profile directory and paste it in. It just works! (most of the time)
Great . . . all we need is everyone who visits WC to sign up and we can almost have real-time folding!
Looks like the Stardock conspiracy theorists were right all along - they are watching us! And I think someone's working on the site, because I'm pretty sure I wasn't moved back to the second page last time I posted a comment. Still not on edit, though.
They have it for everything! (almost )
Once your computer submits a work unit and it updates the stats page, it will show you. This may take some time (a block gets done in about a day here).
Yeah, I know what you mean. The one thing I hate, people who complain about something, you tell them it can't be done for some technical reason, and they claim that a) you're lazy or b) the software sucks and go off in a huff. Rare, but it happens. Fortunately you can rely on someone else to come in and scold them for being churlish. *g*
Well, I included a light version in Blackcomb, so there! Carrots in skins . . . sounds like a new trend! CarrotXP!
Generously wrapped with adware, I see.
WindowBlinds 3.5
Does your computer sit there doing nothing most of the time? Worried that using a $1000 computer just for web-browsing is a bit wasteful? Are you thinking that SETI@Home or distributed.net may be fruitless endeavours? Well, you just might be interested in Folding@Home ! Have your computer spend its time doing some useful
You should just be able to start IE and it will prompt you, if the checkbox at the bottom of Tools/Internet Settings/Programs is ticked. Note that Firefox tends to be faster at opening tabs than it is at opening windows. You might not be used to using this feature - middle-click or ctrl-click a link to open it up in a new tab.
smoke-tetsu: Nobody is going to force you to make your skins conform to what users expect. Just accept that the community has changed (it's no coincidence that "Joe User " is the name of one WC sister site), and many (most?) people here aren't here to appreciate artwork. They want something that they can use on their machines to make it look cool. Note the "they can use": people are lazy, having to adapt to something is hassle for them. So
Well, I'm not an expert with form input, but it might be that you can't tell the browser "only accept PNG files, thanks". Pretty sure you can specify an initial file name, but the user's not forced to honour it. Having a look at the HTML spec, I do not know if the "accept" keyword to set a mime type can be used, or if IE/Firefox use that to restrict file types.
I have used both extensively. In my opinion, you should only use IE if you have to, and the only site you should really have to use it is Windows Update. Anything else, use Firefox. This will reduce the chance of your system being infiltrated, and in general it will make your browsing expreience a more pleasureable one. It also keeps getting better, for free, while IE is not likely to get any better unless you pay for it or MS are forced to ma
That's just a random selection of songs from my playlist. Typically empty strings (or rather, invalid strings) become --- in DXPlayer, but setting an undefined state is another possibility.
What I meant with the current playlist was that if you look at a playlist it is basically something like this, where each of the objects had the DXPlayer display type and state in the parentheses: (Selected - 2) Pink Floyd - Money (Selected - 1) Kermit - It's Not Easy Being Green (Selected+Playing state) Various - The Crystal Method (Selected + 1) REM - Losing My Religion (Selected + 2) Spirited Away - Chihiro's Theme
Imagine you had objects in rows. The ones further to the right would be higher in the X-order. Now imagine you had columns. The ones furthest to the bottom would be higher in the Y-order (because windows starts with (0,0) at the top left). Now, imagine a line of objects coming out of your screen. The ones closest to your face would be highest in the Z-order.
I think perhaps this is because there is little incentive to comment on a skin that you do not like. If it's really bad you won't download it either. Perhaps if people - either users in general or skin authors - could give credit for "good comments", with an award for the top X commenters, we might see more people looking to give helpful comments? Just an idea.
Well, you didn't just buy the scrollbars. You bought the whole application! The trial version is not intended for extended use and has more features that time out after a while. And besides, using a program without paying for it is wrong and your parents would bug you. As for what features are exclusively in the full
It all depends whether you're skinning for yourself or skinning for others - or both. I don't think one of the two is necessarily better than the other, and I respectfully but strongly disagree with the view that "skinning by yourself, for yourself" is the highest form of artwork. Art by itself may be nice, but most skins are designed to actually be used - if people can't or won't use your skin because they don't like how it works, or would like
Mmm, the playlist problem is an issue. One possibility is that I just make one big object that has one. I don't think that's a particularly good idea, but it's an option. Another is that I make "Current Playlist Object +/- 0/1/2/3 . . ." text objects. These would change text each time you modified the playlist or moved around in it (including automatic progression). You could scroll up and down either with bu
paxx: There are indeed the WM/Lyrics and even WM/Lyrics_Synchronised attributes. The former may be available as part of a CD track. I don't know how widespread they are, though - I will have to have a look.
Well, it would probably work the way gauges do now - you would provide two images, a background and a foreground, and the foreground would used linearly from 0 to 100% - so wherever you clicked it would be rated that good. So whether there are 5 or 10 or no stars would be up to the designer and it could be whatever size they wanted - the images just have to fit. However it might decide to only take input or show output in (say) 10% chunks - so that it
Good idea. I had that on my personal list already, had just ran out of time. Do you have any suggestions as to how to show it? I was thinking of just having it as another gauge (and you could make an image that was 5 stars wide) but I am open to suggestions.