PDA

View Full Version : Can we have larger avatars?



ಠ_ಠ
05-27-2009, 01:12 PM
at least 100x100

There isn't enough detail at 55x55

Sebastiani
05-27-2009, 01:23 PM
That's pretty funny. :p But no. :D

hauzer
05-27-2009, 01:28 PM
I think simple "Yes" and "No" would do it.

ಠ_ಠ
05-27-2009, 01:33 PM
I think simple "Yes" and "No" would do it.

No it wouldn't, what are you smoking?

dwks
05-27-2009, 01:52 PM
I say no, since I spent a long time creating my 55x55 avatar which I couldn't re-upload now anyway since it's animated. :)

Plus as a dial-up user I think CBoard is good as is, bandwidth-wise.

MK27
05-27-2009, 04:12 PM
I say no, since I spent a long time creating my 55x55 avatar which I couldn't re-upload now anyway since it's animated. :)


Shhh. No one tell lollypop head our little secret, eh.

ಠ_ಠ
05-27-2009, 04:34 PM
I say no, since I spent a long time creating my 55x55 avatar which I couldn't re-upload now anyway since it's animated. :)

Plus as a dial-up user I think CBoard is good as is, bandwidth-wise.

You would keep your current avatar, it would just be smaller than others

dwks
05-27-2009, 04:47 PM
I know, but if my avatar is restricted to 55x55 then everyone else's should be too. :p Plus there's bandwidth, aesthetic layout, and server space issues. (Can you imagine how much disk space CBoard must be taking up already?)

Seriously, you'd be better off lobbying for animated avatars. I think you'd get better support. At least animated avatars used to be allowed; avatars larger than 55x55 haven't been for as long as I've been here. (Has it really been four years? Wow.)

P.S. Isn't it a pain to log in with a username like that? :)

Sebastiani
05-27-2009, 04:54 PM
>> At least animated avatars used to be allowed;

Huh? Am I just seeing things in that psychedelic swirl? Yours definitely looks animated to me (could be the magic mushrooms, of course).

Neo1
05-27-2009, 04:56 PM
DWKS:

You should check out this thread from last month, animated avatars have already been re-allowed :)

http://cboard.cprogramming.com/general-discussions/115536-bring-back-animated-avatars-2.html

dwks
05-27-2009, 04:59 PM
Ah, I'm out of the loop. Sigh.

Your avatar had me fooled for a moment there. I was scrolling through a thread and thought, "Hey! There have been a lot of replies since I last posted!" But it was only your post from a little while ago.

@Sebastiani: It was just the upload of animated avatars which was disabled (by accident, if I remember correctly, but obviously my brain isn't very up-to-date at the moment). People with animated avatars were allowed to keep them.

ಠ_ಠ
05-27-2009, 05:04 PM
Ah, I'm out of the loop. Sigh.

awww, I wanted to surprise you


P.S. Isn't it a pain to log in with a username like that?

you should see my password

dwks
05-27-2009, 05:09 PM
you should see my password
Well, if you insist. In fact, why don't you post it in plaintext right here on this forum so that everyone who comes by can appreciate its obfuscatedness?

Ah, never mind. Then we'd get into discussing passwords, which I'd rather not. :)

hauzer
05-28-2009, 05:30 AM
No it wouldn't, what are you smoking?

Nothing at the moment, but I'm planing on trying weed.

zacs7
05-28-2009, 06:59 AM
> Ah, never mind. Then we'd get into discussing passwords, which I'd rather not.
Me neither, as mine is only 1 character (and it's in the alphabet). :-)

Aparavoid
05-28-2009, 02:49 PM
Nothing at the moment, but I'm planing on trying weed.

That's illegal. :-(

hauzer
05-28-2009, 05:41 PM
Oh well, define illegal.

ಠ_ಠ
05-28-2009, 09:42 PM
Oh well, define illegal.

Things that are not legal

prog-bman
05-28-2009, 10:33 PM
Its only illegal if you get caught ;)

Sebastiani
05-29-2009, 12:48 AM
>> That's illegal. :-(

Well, that depends on the locality, of course. Oddly enough, it was made illegal in the US simply because it threatened paper (lumber) interests (as new processes were being developed that would make it competitive in that market).

Snafuist
05-29-2009, 01:23 AM
Ah, never mind. Then we'd get into discussing passwords, which I'd rather not. :)

By the way, when I had to change the password for my university account yesterday, the system reported "Error: password too long".

How's that supposed to increase security?

Greets,
Philip

ಠ_ಠ
05-29-2009, 08:01 AM
By the way, when I had to change the password for my university account yesterday, the system reported "Error: password too long".

How's that supposed to increase security?

Greets,
Philip

I know, It sucks when places require passwords to be under a few hundred characters

Yarin
05-29-2009, 10:06 AM
I think 55x55 is plenty big enough - who really wants to see a 100x100 fuzzy face with bleeding eyes??

>> Plus as a dial-up user I think CBoard is good as is, bandwidth-wise.
Agreed!

>> Me neither, as mine is only 1 character (and it's in the alphabet). :-)
I'm sure that's below the minimum password length limit.

ಠ_ಠ
05-29-2009, 02:16 PM
I think 55x55 is plenty big enough - who really wants to see a 100x100 fuzzy face with bleeding eyes??

I attached the avatar I would use with the first post, notice how it's smaller than the gray space

quzah
05-29-2009, 03:06 PM
>> That's illegal. :-(

Well, that depends on the locality, of course. Oddly enough, it was made illegal in the US simply because it threatened paper (lumber) interests (as new processes were being developed that would make it competitive in that market).
Plastics. Not so much lumber.

MK27
05-29-2009, 03:45 PM
Plastics. Not so much lumber.

No, it was mostly to do with lumber. Dupont came up with a method of bleaching pulp to make it more useful as quality paper instead of just newsprint. Previous to that, a lot of paper was hemp, eg, the US Constitution. Newsprint was an exception, and that in turn became threatened by new methods in hemp production which made it competitive with pulp. William Randolph Hurst (Citizen Kane) was heavily invested in lumber and the Dupont process. He and Dupont funded a public smear campaign (which must have been easy, since Hurst owned most of the daily newspapers) that pulled racist strings (eg, that blacks and latinos used marijuana to sedate and seduce white women), which in pre WWII America was probably akin to a sure bet. Most people didn't care about dope, but they would rally around the clan every chance they got.

VirtualAce
05-29-2009, 07:19 PM
Weed was not made illegal recreationally due to it's industrial issues. There are about a hundred thousand chemicals and substances that are legal in industry but illegal for the common citizen to have and/or use.

Citing the industrial side of the argument as the sole reason it was made illegal for consumers is a bit short-sighted.

ಠ_ಠ
05-29-2009, 07:26 PM
Weed was not made illegal recreationally due to it's industrial issues. There are about a hundred thousand chemicals and substances that are legal in industry but illegal for the common citizen to have and/or use.

Citing the industrial side of the argument as the sole reason it was made illegal for consumers is a bit short-sighted.

the discussion is leading towards the hemp side, which is illegal and cannot be smoked

MK27
05-29-2009, 07:40 PM
Weed was not made illegal recreationally due to it's industrial issues.

No, that was a side effect of the Hurst campaign. This is not a hard leap to make, Bubba. Hurst's papers really did run these articles (vis, marijuana and adultery with minorities), that was what really what made banning "dr. feelgood" a winning "majority" political platform, and Hurst really was invested in PULP and paper and Dupont. They benefited *immensely* from that.

Sebastiani
05-29-2009, 10:13 PM
>> Citing the industrial side of the argument as the sole reason it was made illegal for consumers is a bit short-sighted.

As a matter of fact, my great-grandfather (not one to entertain wild theories, either) even reached this conclusion at the time (he wasn't personally affected by the ban, as he was involved in oil speculation and fruit tree production at the time), characterizing it as as a serious strategic mistake (due to the usefulness of the plant). As agriculture was always a major concern of his (interestingly, he often warned that the lack of diversity in banana cultivation may lead to a die-out of the crop, which turned out to be quite accurate!), he was probably as qualified as anyone to correlate the events surrounding the ban. At any rate, I think the evidence is clear if you consider all of the circumstances. Hemp was being hailed as the "billion-dollar crop", which naturally worried the paper industry, who stood to lose *everything*, so they worked very hard to remove the threat (and succeeded). Incidentally, I agree that the consumption of the plant should probably be restricted, but I do think it's a shame that we aren't utilizing the crop for other (numerous) purposes.

ಠ_ಠ
05-30-2009, 12:22 AM
Incidentally, I agree that the consumption of the plant should probably be restricted, but I do think it's a shame that we aren't utilizing the crop for other (numerous) purposes.

hemp != marijuana

Sebastiani
05-30-2009, 12:41 AM
The U.S. doesn't make such a distinction. Both are illegal.

ಠ_ಠ
05-30-2009, 12:49 AM
The U.S. doesn't make such a distinction. Both are illegal.

yes, but you can't consume hemp

Sebastiani
05-30-2009, 01:26 AM
Actually, I believe you can (and it appears to be quite nutritious). In any case, it can't be produced in the States in any form or fashion for whatever purpose.

EDIT:
To be honest, I don't get what point you're trying to make. Care to elaborate?

BuzzBuzz
05-30-2009, 02:27 AM
No, that was a side effect of the Hurst campaign. This is not a hard leap to make, Bubba. Hurst's papers really did run these articles (vis, marijuana and adultery with minorities), that was what really what made banning "dr. feelgood" a winning "majority" political platform, and Hurst really was invested in PULP and paper and Dupont. They benefited *immensely* from that.

Do you mean to say that big business,with the aid of political backing, lied to people in order to protect their business interests rather than act for the betterment of the population and planet? Yeah, right. Next you'll be saying that smoking causes cancer when Philip Morris has already told us that's not true.......

^^That was to illustrate a point that considering that we are STILL being lied to by those who would rather protect their business interests over anything else. So why is it so far fetched that in the 1930's when people were much more ignorant (correct usage in context) that business interests came before anything else and "arguments" were accepted without question, especially if the argument was that it must be bad because the negroes are doing it!

It seems that Sebastiani's relative was one of the few forward thinking people of the time, but as a minority and without any political backing his ideas would probably have been discounted as "outlandish".

But anyway - on topic. First animated avatars, now wanting bigger avatars. What next? Why can't you be happy that you have an avatar at all.

Salem
05-30-2009, 04:18 AM
> The U.S. doesn't make such a distinction. Both are illegal.
Somewhat of an irony then that it's founding document was written on hemp paper then.
Hemp Facts (http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html)

ಠ_ಠ
05-30-2009, 12:09 PM
> The U.S. doesn't make such a distinction. Both are illegal.
Somewhat of an irony then that it's founding document was written on hemp paper then.
Hemp Facts (http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html)

too slow, someone else already said that

Salem
05-30-2009, 12:47 PM
> too slow, someone else already said that
Imagine how much slower it would be with loads of bloated crappy avatars as well :p

Consider the current restriction to be an opportunity to be creative, not a problem to be avoided by changing the rules.

ಠ_ಠ
05-30-2009, 12:51 PM
Consider the current restriction to be an opportunity to be creative, not a problem to be avoided by changing the rules.

so try to find a way to trick it into thinking an image is smaller than it really is?

stevesmithx
05-31-2009, 09:54 PM
Offtopic:

Next you'll be saying that smoking causes cancer when Philip Morris has already told us that's not true.......

I hope that you are kidding here because it is a proven fact that smoking increases the probability of cancer esp. lung cancer.

ಠ_ಠ
05-31-2009, 10:22 PM
so try to find a way to trick it into thinking an image is smaller than it really is?

awww, they fixed that bug ;_;

BuzzBuzz
06-01-2009, 06:21 AM
Offtopic:

I hope that you are kidding here because it is a proven fact that smoking increases the probability of cancer esp. lung cancer.

Nope, I'm deadly serious. As I made clear in the post you quoted.

hauzer
06-01-2009, 01:01 PM
I think smoking cigars is way more unhealthy than smoking weed.

MK27
06-01-2009, 03:12 PM
I think smoking cigars is way more unhealthy than smoking weed.

This is probably why people on the East Coast of the US will buy a cigar, split the rapper, dump the tobacco out on the street, and roll weed in it. Because they are smart that way.

I grew up in the NorthWest and that is much less of a practice there last time I checked. But in NYC it is almost funny, since it provides an incredible in-your-face demonstration of how much tax money could be collected thru legalization. Walk into *ANY* corner convenience here (there are like 3-4 to a block) and right behind the counter you will see a monster display of (!) cheap, fat, flavoured cigars. Like, banana, strawberry, mango, peach, vanilla, ultra-chocolate, meringue, silver, plain, platinum, coconut, beef, watermelon, candy-cane, and so on. Wait about five minutes and you will see two or three kids come in and buy a few, at $1-2 a piece. Now, one thing you *never* see is these same kids (or anyone else) strolling around smoking these cheap cigars they bought just for the big flavoured leaf a cigar is wrapped in. Which the replacement filling is gonna be $5-10.

But if the government started collecting tax there the money would no longer be needed because of all the dough they saved closing prisons, so I guess there is no point.

stevesmithx
06-02-2009, 02:27 AM
nope, i'm deadly serious. As i made clear in the post you quoted.


++++++++++[>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>+
++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>
++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++
+>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++>+++>+++++++++++
>+++++++++>++++++++++>+++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++
++++++>+++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++
>+++>++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>
+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>++++
+++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>+++++++++>++++++++++>+++
++++++++>+>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++
++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++
+>++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++>+++++++++>+++>+++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++
++++++>+++>+++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++
+++>+++>+++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++++
++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++>+++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++
++++>++++++++++>+++>+++>++++>+>++++>++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++
+++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++
++++++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-]>++.>++++
++++.>+.>+++++++.>+++++.>+.>++.>+++++++.>+++++.>+.>++.>++++++.>++++.>+.>++.>.>++
.>+++++++.>.>++.>+++++.>.>++++++.>+.>.>.>+.>.>++.>++.>++++++.>+++++++.>+++.>++.>
+++++.>.>++.>++++++.>++++.>+.>++.>++.>+++++++.>++++++.>+++++++.>++++.>+.>++.>+++
+++++.>+++++.>+++++++.>+.>++.>+++++.>++.>+++++++.>+++++.>+.>.>++.>++++++.>++++.>
+.>++.>+++++++++.>+.>.>+.>++.>++++++.>+++++++.>+++.>+++++.>.>++++++.>+.>++.>.>+.
>.>+.>++++++.>+.>++.>++++++.>++++.>+++++.>+++++.>++.>+++++.>+++++.>++.>+++++++.>
++.>+++++++++.>+.>.>+.>++.>+++++++.>.>.>++.>.>+.>++++++.>++.>+++++++.>++.>++.>++
+++.>++++++++.>+.>++.>+.>++.>++.>++++.>+++++++.>++++++++.>++++++++.>+++++.>+++++
.>++++.>+++.>+++.>++++++.>.>+++++.>+++++.>+++++.>++++++.>+.>++++++++.>+.>+++++.>
+++++++++.>+++++.>++++++.>++++.>.
;)

indigo0086
06-02-2009, 11:08 AM
ಥ__ಥ

ಠ_ಠ
06-02-2009, 03:14 PM
ಥ__ಥ

who the ........ Told you my name

Homer_Simpson
06-02-2009, 03:28 PM
who the ........ Told you my name

That's not a question.

dwks
06-05-2009, 09:18 AM
Copy-paste told me your name, ಠ_ಠ.