Have A Question? V2

[Master of San Andreas]

@finn-Okley?thats what it says,

 

(I think you want to know the name?)

*Perhaps I am not the smartest guy around, but I'm not a compete f*cking moron, I'm slightly offended you think so, which is odd, I hardly ever get offended. I took the photo from the Oakley website, I don't want the brand name I want the name of the style. Kinda like with shorts you have board shorts or walk shorts

I didn't mean to offend,

 

Hold On.

[AnotherDave]

 

@MoSA They're based on the classic Wayfarer sunglasses.

[Harley]

those are a pair of wayfarers. oakleys a fine brand but for what you want i think you'd be better off with ray bans - if you have the money

[Guest]

Why was Mati banned? Wasn't he a moderator?

[coin-god]

Mati is banned? Cool.

[vertical limit]

Why was Mati banned? Wasn't he a moderator?

He requested it and he wasn't a mod, he was a led-by.

[Miro]

Why was Mati banned? Wasn't he a moderator?

He requested a ban because he wanted to switch accounts - he's now Technique.

[Mr Rabbit]

 

@finn-Okley?thats what it says,

 

(I think you want to know the name?)

*Perhaps I am not the smartest guy around, but I'm not a compete f*cking moron, I'm slightly offended you think so, which is odd, I hardly ever get offended. I took the photo from the Oakley website, I don't want the brand name I want the name of the style. Kinda like with shorts you have board shorts or walk shorts

I kinda wanna just say sunglasses now. but they are wayfarers or at least wayfarer adjacent

that reminds me... i'll be back

[Finn 7 five 11]

those are a pair of wayfarers. oakleys a fine brand but for what you want i think you'd be better off with ray bans - if you have the money

The price range is pretty similar, and I am quite sure that the same manufacturer, (Luxottica) they make all the high end lenses at least, so right now the only thing I am looking for is design. In fact all the big Australian stores for sunglasses are owned by Luxottica and only sell their products, so brand doesn't really matter at this point, i've always preferred the Oakley style.

OPSM

Laubman & Pank

Budget Eyewear

Bright Eyes

Sunglass Hut

 

http://luxottica.com.au/brands-products/

 

[Gtaghost22]

 

He requested a ban because he wanted to switch accounts - he's now Technique.

I thought he wanted to remain anonymous, how did you know that is him?

 

What's his new account name, though?

I'm guessing, if the net-sup thread disappeared, he's meant to remain anonymous. It's like GTAF version of witness protection.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Gtaghost22

[AceRay]

What was the song David Bowie song near the end of Labyrinth, when the weird gravity got changed up and its all dreamlike?

[Acehilm]

What was the song David Bowie song near the end of Labyrinth, when the weird gravity got changed up and its all dreamlike?

 

David Bowie recorded five songs for the film: "Underground", "Magic Dance", "Chilly Down", "As the World Falls Down" and "Within You". "Underground"

 

Source - Wikipedia

[The-King]

 

those are a pair of wayfarers. oakleys a fine brand but for what you want i think you'd be better off with ray bans - if you have the money

The price range is pretty similar, and I am quite sure that the same manufacturer, (Luxottica) they make all the high end lenses at least, so right now the only thing I am looking for is design. In fact all the big Australian stores for sunglasses are owned by Luxottica and only sell their products, so brand doesn't really matter at this point, i've always preferred the Oakley style.

OPSM

Laubman & Pank

Budget Eyewear

Bright Eyes

Sunglass Hut

 

http://luxottica.com.au/brands-products/

Buy them by Ray Ban or bust, that has and will always be Ray Ban's flagship style. Whenever I see someone with brand-name knock-off Wayfarers I can't help but think they're a bit of a back-birth. I don't mind cheap knock-offs because I own a few pair since I'm too poor to afford the real thing, but if you're gonna' be buying them brand-name, buy Ray Ban.

[Harley]

 

those are a pair of wayfarers. oakleys a fine brand but for what you want i think you'd be better off with ray bans - if you have the money

The price range is pretty similar, and I am quite sure that the same manufacturer, (Luxottica) they make all the high end lenses at least, so right now the only thing I am looking for is design. In fact all the big Australian stores for sunglasses are owned by Luxottica and only sell their products, so brand doesn't really matter at this point, i've always preferred the Oakley style.

OPSM

Laubman & Pank

Budget Eyewear

Bright Eyes

Sunglass Hut

 

http://luxottica.com.au/brands-products/

Buy them by Ray Ban or bust, that has and will always be Ray Ban's flagship style. Whenever I see someone with brand-name knock-off Wayfarers I can't help but think they're a bit of a back-birth. I don't mind cheap knock-offs because I own a few pair since I'm too poor to afford the real thing, but if you're gonna' be buying them brand-name, buy Ray Ban.

exactly what i was thinking.

 

to be honest, so many people wear black wayfarers now, you could get them in tortoiseshell or even get a pair of clubmasters. clubmasters are sweet

[Miro]

 

He requested a ban because he wanted to switch accounts - he's now Technique.

I thought he wanted to remain anonymous, how did you know that is him?

 

What's his new account name, though?

I'm guessing, if the net-sup thread disappeared, he's meant to remain anonymous. It's like GTAF version of witness protection.

It appeared in the #56 Issue of the Multiplay Monitor at the Forum News section (every information that's there is legit):

 

 

 

He also made a topic about it in the Network Support forum, but it's gone now.

[Cheat]

Can you live (for a week or so) without drinking if you eat watery foods like watermelons, cucumber etc?

[Finn 7 five 11]

Can you live (for a week or so) without drinking if you eat watery foods like watermelons, cucumber etc?

I'm sure you could, depends how much watery food though, if you ate a watermelon per day that would be enough water to survive a life time I think, obviously more water would be optimal.|

 

 

[TheKryptonite]

Why is the limit for avatars 64x64? We should be allowed to have bigger avatars, imo.

[Miro]

There would be problems with the bandwith of the forum. There are already a lot of members with huge signatures and also the avatars that are already for use. It'd be too much for the server. Plus, after all, the 64x64 pixels limit is a decent one.

[Ryan]

There would be problems with the bandwith of the forum. There are already a lot of members with huge signatures and also the avatars that are already for use. It'd be too much for the server. Plus, after all, the 64x64 pixels limit is a decent one.

It's not really a bandwidth issue with our serves, but rather us wanting to be friendly and accessible to the many users who browse this forum with limited bandwidth.

[sivispacem]

Plus I question whether we need a size limit increase or removal, given the idiotic abuse of signature sizes by some members (10+ meg animated GIFs et cetera)

[Rebel]

I have a question about images. Basically, when you have pictures on FB and want to use them on your phone, or even on your PC since there good photo's I tend to just go to the image I want and then print screen and crop and save. What I'm wondering is, if you guys understand - when I make this ''new'' image on my PC and save it, does it make its own kind of time stamp or does it use the one where you got it from, like Facebook. I'm not really sure how to explain it properly, I remember Rob talked about some kind of image identity or some sh*t like that but I don't remember. Basically if I take a picture from FB and then save it & send to someone else in an email would that person know that it originally came from FB, even if they don't know that to begin with?

[Edmachine]

@Signatures and avatars: Signatures have an 80kB size limit, though I think there might be a way to get around it (not telling). I do believe it's a bit limiting nowadays. Also, avatars don't affect the server's bandwidth, since they are not hosted on the network's server(s?).

 

@Rebel: If you Print Screen your screen then no. If you save the actual image from FB's servers, I'm not sure, it might. Well, the filename could be a giveaway, if the other person knows what FB image filenames look like.

[Rebel]

I see, I just wondered if images actually have some kind of ''paper trail'' so to speak if you go about saving images from places and then just renaming them if it kept the same kind of properties so to speak once saved if you right clicked on the file after you did save it. You know like some images actually have a time stamp/date, and information on where/what camera they were taken on, I didn't know if that information would be stored even once uploaded to the internet. Seems rather interesting to me.

[lil weasel]

Some Images have data implanted in the image file (especially for copyright) tracing.

Use your computers 'Snipping tool' for no sweat fast copying of screen images, and title it as you like.

 

ImageShack.com is very good at automaticly resizing upload images.

Edited November 27, 2012 by lil weasel

[K^2]

There would be problems with the bandwith of the forum. There are already a lot of members with huge signatures and also the avatars that are already for use. It'd be too much for the server. Plus, after all, the 64x64 pixels limit is a decent one.

It's not really a bandwidth issue with our serves, but rather us wanting to be friendly and accessible to the many users who browse this forum with limited bandwidth.

That makes absolutely no sense with standing sig rules.

 

Personally, I think large avatars would break flow of the threads and be distracting. But I can't think of any reasons against increasing avatar size limit to 100x100, given current sig rules.

[sivispacem]

 

Some Images have data implanted in the image file (especially for copyright) tracing.

Use your computers 'Snipping tool' for  no sweat fast copying of screen images, and title it as you like.

 

ImageShack.com is very good at automaticly resizing upload images.

It's called steganography, and the absence of invisible hidden data is just as much as a give-away as the presence of it- put simply, if someone sees a piece of their work presented somewhere without the unique steganographic key, they know it's been stolen in such a way to remove it- and of course there are other ways of getting round the issue, like using embedded JavaScript, HTML or Flash to force hardware overlay and simulate a video render, or other scripting to display images which can defeat your using screenshotting behaviours. Plus, you can only screen-cap up to the maximum resolution of your display, so for "proper" works of art with resolutions far higher than what can be displayed on a monitor of a common or garden pc, so won't adapt to scaling well.

 

But it's all largely academic as Facebook don't implement steganography. It's possible their users could, but aside from people like professional photographers it's pretty unlikely. You can forensically identify images based on EXIF and other metadata which can list things like time and date stamps, PC names and usernames, MAC addresses, geolocation data, camera make and model and all sorts of other goodies, but lots of big organisations strip this out of their files using automated programmes. Then it can be identified from the monitoring of internet traffic, packet sniffing and analysis- in fact, using the right software, someone could even pull a remote copy of whatever you download, even though a secure connection if they were at the client end. But that's even less likely, as that kind of forensic analysis is only really used in the case of monitoring malicious attacks, criminal activity or suspected foreign espionage.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

I have a question about images. Basically, when you have pictures on FB and want to use them on your phone, or even on your PC since there good photo's I tend to just go to the image I want and then print screen and crop and save. What I'm wondering is, if you guys understand - when I make this ''new'' image on my PC and save it, does it make its own kind of time stamp or does it use the one where you got it from, like Facebook. I'm not really sure how to explain it properly, I remember Rob talked about some kind of image identity or some sh*t like that but I don't remember. Basically if I take a picture from FB and then save it & send to someone else in an email would that person know that it originally came from FB, even if they don't know that to begin with?

Don't Prt Scr, takes too long, just click the image and drag it over to the url bar, and then do it again if you're not in the original image, the right click and save, this is good for hotlinking from facebook so you get the URL if you don't want to right click and "Copy Image URL"

 

Or just right click "save Image as" when you see the image.

 

Time stamps that are saved on the actual photo like in the bottom right corner where there is a date, it can easily be cropped out like lil weasel mentioned.

Print screening should not take any Image data with it other than physical (Like the date in the bottom right), but saving it might, easy way to check is to save a bunch of Facebook photo's and then right click the picture from wherever it is saved (IE; Documents) then go properties ---> Details where it has things like Camera make/model ect. None of my photo's have this because either facebook doesn't bother saving that data to the images, or I just have images lacking that data.

 

In conclusion, if I rename the file when I get it to get rid of the numbers and letters Facebook assign it, there is no other data that it was on Facebook or where it came from, that's however only in the photo's I bothered checking.

Anyway, running late. Bye.

 

EDIT: Sivispacem just beat me to it with the proper terminology and a more detailed explanation which seems to be more correct. *Sigh* At least I tried.

Edited November 27, 2012 by finn4life

[Rebel]

Thanks for the in depth information guys, its all very interesting. I just wondered about it earlier tonight due to the fact I noticed nothing was saved like when/where/what camera it was taken on while I was print screening a bunch of old photos that I didn't have on my computer anymore. Its quite interesting knowing that just a simple image can be traced back to its ''original'' owner? just by using the right type of programmes and stuff, sounds like some CSI TV show haha.

[Sneakerhead.]

Is there anywhere on here where I can put my GTR2 gameplay videos?

I want to share them with the GTAF community, but I have nowhere to put them.