MasterPlanSoftware:

I don't even want it to be a platform for that lunatic. I want it to be basically biographical, listing his rants and raves as viewed 'in nature'. 

 

Good user contributed stores that thread together all of the ridiculous ideas, stories, contradictions and lies that are the great bearded one...

Stuff like that. I think Spectate would love it even though it would be clearly making fun of him, but he doesn't get it anyway.

Still think it is a good idea?

 

It would make a good site, I'm just conscious that you might get your arse sued off... although I suppose it's not really defamation of character when the character in question is a gibbering loon. Hell, if you're lucky, you might even earn yourself a curse. 

rc_pinchey:

It would make a good site, I'm just conscious that you might get your arse sued off... although I suppose it's not really defamation of character when the character in question is a gibbering loon. Hell, if you're lucky, you might even earn yourself a curse. 

 

I am doing it... I just registered the domains. I will need some help, but I will let people know when it is up.

I think I will use a open source wiki engine.

I am looking at ScrewTurn Wiki and FlexWiki. Anyone have any other recommendations? I want it to be based on Mono/.NET (C# preferable) and it should work with MySQL and/or MSSQL.

 Open for suggestions. I won't entertain anything that doesn't meet those requirements though, I don't need a language/technology flame war.

Anybody want to volunteer to make a good logo/banner for the top of the site? Maybe a favicon? 

I'm in.  I also thought of a similar idea, but I was going register www.spectateswamp.com (it is available) but wanted to check on possible legal entanglements it would cause me first, but I like your name better.  I am not particularly good with professional graphics, but I can draw cartoons though.  Maybe we can think up a few (hundred) strip ideas from these meandering comments...  I would be interested in that angle.

 Dr. Phil

DrPhil:

I'm in.  I also thought of a similar idea, but I was going register www.spectateswamp.com (it is available) but wanted to check on possible legal entanglements it would cause me first, but I like your name better.  I am not particularly good with professional graphics, but I can draw cartoons though.  Maybe we can think up a few (hundred) strip ideas from these meandering comments...  I would be interested in that angle.

 Dr. Phil

 

Welcome aboard!

FYI SpectateSwamp.com USED to be available. I just snagged it.

Might as well commit!

SpectateSwamp:

Anybody wanting to use Swamp Search to slow down images

 

And here we have it... even "images" move too fast for Swampy. How does one slow down something that DOESN'T MOVE!? 

rc_pinchey:

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!

Old school quote FTW!

rc_pinchey:

I've got to say this again, as the sheer boundless stupidity of it has overwhelmed me utterly.

In order to turn off "start" and "wait", you retype the command which enabled them, but with the addition of a second "a".

 

Congratulations, Spectate Swamp, your user interface is perfectly wrong. 

Sort of. if it doesn't say "wait=" but reads "waait=" or remove it completely if you like. I find reactivating it quicker by taking one of the extra "a"'s out. ie change it back to "wait=" instead of "waait=" Anyway back to the bird. That bird saw that speck. Back to the tobacco leaf flyer. Man that stem on the "leaf" sure moved alot. It is completely gone in the last frame? The camera picks up small shit as you can tell. So it didn't miss the tail/stem of the leaf. It's retractable. I will also do a better job of displaying the path of those other 8 flights that occured. Weird very weird. I still haven't found the back alley one where a flyer checked me videoing in the alley. These specks probably thought I was weird as well?

 

In looking at the flyers in super slow motion through the screen reshoots I have been able to show you some of the action. Those 2 flyers that did the doe-see-doe circle each other move. Bugs don't do that. They have bug business to attend to. If you look hard and do a good screen reshoot You'll see the Cloaked movements. Maybe it's only me that has this screen reshoot capability? Come on somebody do a better reshoot or display of this sequence, if you can. One of the Doe-see-doe pair waited for the other. Hardly moving.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2491448387537557028

 

 

SpectateSwamp:

Sort of. if it doesn't say "wait=" but reads "waait=" or remove it completely if you like. I find reactivating it quicker by taking one of the extra "a"'s out. ie change it back to "wait=" instead of "waait="

Specate... that is exactly what he said.  We know what you are doing, and out of everything you have done so far, it is probably the most sane thing you have done, but it is still stupid.  You still haven't explained why one uses '==' and the other uses '='.  How do I know that isn't a typo?  In addition, because the config files have to be done manually, how does SSDS detect a mistake in the file typed up by the user?  Thats why we are saying that the UI is perfectly wrong.

Anyway back to the bird. That bird saw that speck. Back to the tobacco leaf flyer. Man that stem on the "leaf" sure moved alot. It is completely gone in the last frame? The camera picks up small shit as you can tell. So it didn't miss the tail/stem of the leaf. It's retractable.

No, the stem is still there... the leaf just simplly turned around so part of the leaf blocked the stem from your view.  Again... take a lesson in 3-D space projected onto 2-D space.

Weird very weird. I still haven't found the back alley one where a flyer checked me videoing in the alley.

Try using GDS... you might actually find it.  SSDS certainly hasn't helped you there.

These specks probably thought I was weird as well?

Only in your head... only in your head...

CodeSimian:

You are a birdwatcher, remember?  You tell us what's going on in its mind.  Somehow I have the feeling its got more going on up there than you do.

I only became a (singular) bird watcher a couple years ago when the Hoodie showed up. Somebody must know sparrow behavior? Anybody. I think that White Crow is watching me to? My question is "how to catch one of these things?" If they exist?" Without using a bird. Show your bird the video and every time it notices a Flyer. It gets a treat. Pretty soon you'll have one in a jar! Then again that may make them turn on you.

SpectateSwamp:

Sort of. if it doesn't say "wait=" but reads "waait=" or remove it completely if you like. I find reactivating it quicker by taking one of the extra "a"'s out. ie change it back to "wait=" instead of "waait="

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.  You really need to work on your communication skills.  All you had to say was: "Remove the 'wait' and 'start' options.  I personally like to rename them so it's easier to put them back later.  Normal people would probably just take them out completely."

SpectateSwamp:

Maybe it's only me that has this screen reshoot capability?

Yes, Spectate.  YOU ARE THE ONLY MAN IN THE WORLD WHO IS CAPABLE OF POINTING HIS CAMCORDER AT A TV/LAPTOP SCREEN PLAYING A VIDEO, IN ORDER TO RE-SHOOT IT. SERIOUSLY.  NOBODY ELSE KNOWS HOW TO DO THIS.  IT MUST BE BECAUSE WE DON'T USE SSDS.

 

SpectateSwamp:

Come on somebody do a better reshoot or display of this sequence, if you can.

How many times do we have to explain to you that RE-SHOOTING VIDEO ONLY REDUCES THE QUALITY.  Do you think archaeologists "restore" ancient parchments by photocopying them over and over again?  Do you think audio experts restore old or damaged sound recordings by re-recording them over and over again with a tape recorder?

More importantly, NOBODY CARES.  Really, nobody cares about your aliens, except for their entertainment/enragement value.  NOBODY WANTS TO DO YOUR SCREEN RE-SHOOTS FOR YOU. 

 

 

 

WeatherGod:

You still haven't explained why one uses '==' and the other uses '='.  How do I know that isn't a typo? 

It isn't a typeo. That's why I gave you the source. Don't look at the source. Don't look for aliens. Why has nobody detailed the other 8 tobacco leaf flyer flight paths? Oh yeah this is "yappy lazy forum" This group can't even do a descent screen reshoot.

SpectateSwamp:

Don't look at the source.

  The MASSES won't read or understand the source.  I thought SSDS was Easy Easy Easy for The Masses?

SpectateSwamp:

Don't look for aliens.

Nobody cares.

SpectateSwamp:

Why has nobody detailed the other 8 tobacco leaf flyer flight paths?

Nobody cares about that either.

SpectateSwamp:

Oh yeah this is "yappy lazy forum"

Hmm...

SpectateUnabomber:

I'M TIRED OF WORKING ON THE SSDS CODE.  SOMEBODY SHOULD PORT IT LINUX AND MAC FOR ME.

 

SpectateUnabomber:

I CREATED A SOURCEFORGE PROJECT BUT I'M TOO LAZY AND STUPID TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT, SUCH AS UPLOAD SOURCE, ADD DOCUMENTATION OR EVEN HAND OVER ADMINISTRATIVE ACCESS TO A HELPFUL VOLUNTEER.

SpectateUnabomber:

NOBODY CARES ABOUT MY ALIEN VIDEOS.  WHY WON'T SOMEBODY HERE HELP WITH THAT?

 

SpectateSwamp:

This group can't even do a descent screen reshoot.

Nobody wants to do a "screen re-shoot" for you.

SpectateSwamp:

Don't look at the source. Don't look for aliens. Why has nobody detailed the other 8 tobacco leaf flyer flight paths? Oh yeah this is "yappy lazy forum" This group can't even do a descent screen reshoot.

 

Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh.  Let me try one more time to appeal to your last remaining shreds of decency and sanity.  It is very simple:

• You, Doug Pederson, are the one who cares about SSDS.  Therefore, YOU, Doug Pederson, have to do the work to convince us to like SSDS.  Our lives were fine before before we heard about you and your search program.  We have no moral, ethical, legal, spiritual, or contractual obligation to read the source code or do anything to help you with SSDS.
• You, Doug Pederson, are the one who cares about aliens.  Therefore, YOU, Doug Pederson, have to do the work to convince us that your "alien" videos are interesting.  Our lives were just fine before we heard about your alien videos.  Last time I checked, there was no religious, philosophical or ethical commandment which states: "Thou Shalt Help SpectateSwamp Search For Aliens".
• You, Doug Pederson, are the one who likes to re-shoot your videos.  Nobody else likes to do this.  Therefore, YOU, Doug Pederson, are responsible for your own screen re-shoots.  Nobody else.  I'm having trouble finding the holy book or legal statute that commands: "Everyone must re-shoot their video screens for Doug Pederson's convenience".

Really.  The world does not revolve around you.  Are you really having that much trouble getting this?  Or are you just the world's biggest jerk?

The only software a webswampsite should need to run. Is SSDS.  Port it to xslt and Jam It! 

 

WeatherGod:

You still haven't explained why one uses '==' and the other uses '='.  How do I know that isn't a typo? 

He doesn't know why. The stones know. The stones told him to write it that way for their own reasons, and they've damaged him so much he simply can't see how doing it that way is bad design. Anyone who attempts to understand it risks becoming just like him... and yet there may be no other way to save the world from the danger of which the stones are a harbinger. It might be our only hope.

MarcB:

A side view of the same scene. Again, notice your "ufo" passing between you and the camera. Just cause it looks like two things touched on your screen doesn't mean they did in real life.

SS looks like frowning Jesus. Does that count as a Freudian slip?

Fun Fact: If you try and pronounce "staart" or "waait", you end up sounding like Leeloo from The Fifth Element.

Also, good job on starting the SS tribute site. I've been wondering why he doesn't have a legitimate Wikipedia page yet.

MasterPlanSoftware:

If I set it up as a wiki, could I count on others to help me with chroniciling the life and times of the feature person (Spectate of course)?

There's already sites that do exactly this - sounds like a job for Encyclopædia Dramatica, usually the site to document web drama. However, if someone starts an article there, I think readers should be warned: the sheer utter weirdness of these threads eclipses anything on that site.

A separate site might still be a really really great idea though.

SpectateSwamp:

That bird saw that speck.

It could have been looking at it if it was a bug, it might have just been facing that general direction - the video clip doesn't give any indication of alien life however.

SpectateSwamp:

Man that stem on the "leaf" sure moved alot. It is completely gone in the last frame?

The leaf was moving around, the stem would appear to vanish if it was either behind or in front of the leaf. This does not make it retractable just at a different angle.

SpectateSwamp:

I still haven't found the back alley one where a flyer checked me videoing in the alley. 

Why don't you search with SSDS - surely that should be able to find the clip for you....

SpectateSwamp:

Maybe it's only me that has this screen reshoot capability? Come on somebody do a better reshoot or display of this sequence, if you can.

You are the only person who considers this a sane thing to do - why would you film a tv showing a video when there are ways to just feed the video direct to the PC and encode it? Filming A TV just adds more noise etc. and reduces the overall video quality (by that I mean the quality of the displayed image - I am making no claims about the quality of the content in your case).

SpectateSwamp:

It isn't a typeo. That's why I gave you the source. Don't look at the source. Don't look for aliens. Why has nobody detailed the other 8 tobacco leaf flyer flight paths? Oh yeah this is "yappy lazy forum" This group can't even do a descent screen reshoot.

The source is unmaintainable rubbish, the fact you even did something as moronic as two different ways of assigning a value is inexcusable. Expecting others to fix every single pointless mistake while still claiming greatness is pathetic. I have never seen such convoluted code before - the fact it won't even compile under VB6 due to the function size it a testament in itself.

Going open source is more than just posting the code to a website and repeatedly saying 'fix it yourself' or 'jam it', if you want people to help then you need to show an interest. The fact you are even unwilling to provide a sourceforge project that is usable says a lot about you and your faith in SSDS.

See previous bit for my take on the reshoot idea (summary - you are a fool).

Cap'n Steve:

I've been wondering why he doesn't have a legitimate Wikipedia page yet.

I'm not quite sure if he gets over the notability threshold - Swampy shows a few news articles, but that's that. Failing to get elected isn't remarkable, nor is necessarily appearing in Local Weirdnesses sections in newspapers.

And even if he would be deemed notable by these merits, I'm not sure what we could say about him in a verifiable way: self-published material just isn't reliable. As has been pointed out, our SS could be just a random unrelated loon who writes "Doug P. fan fiction".

Now, if a few legitimate publications (the more the better) with actual journalistic standards would examine the Spectate Swamp Net Phenomenon, that would be another matter altogether...

MasterPlanSoftware:

 Open for suggestions. I won't entertain anything that doesn't meet those requirements though, I don't need a language/technology flame war.

What flamewar? All software sucks - and all particular brands of wiki software seem to have their peculiar quirks. The question is, how differently it will suck?... =)

MasterPlanSoftware:

Anybody want to volunteer to make a good logo/banner for the top of the site? Maybe a favicon?

Hmm, now, favicon, that seems like a challenge. What can you really fit in 16x16 pixels anyway? A UFO? Clearly enough room for an UFO and little more.

WWWWolf:

Hmm, now, favicon, that seems like a challenge. What can you really fit in 16x16 pixels anyway? A UFO? Clearly enough room for an UFO and little more.

 

How about a small black blob on blue background? Much easier than designing an alien and we all know they are the same thing anyway....

spenk:

How about a small black blob on blue background? Much easier than designing an alien and we all know they are the same thing anyway....

There you go....