Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - creeperton

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16
How big of a byte array is too big?  Item data is 256 entries * 28 bytes or 7168 bytes long.  Other data tables are about 40 entries by 256 bytes (10240 bytes long).

I assume that if that is too long, then i should make the byte array something that evenly divided by the number of entries, then iterate over it a fixed number of times, reading from zis and writing to tempItemData.bin?

I know I'm supposed to do something like this:

File zippedItemData = new File("tempItemData.bin");
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(zippedItemData);
ZipInputStream zis = new ZipInputStream(fis);

I don't really know where to go from here.  This is because I really don't know what the hell is going on in all these different input streams and file objects - the book didn't really cover this and neither did my CS 162 instructor (granted, I'm doing stuff that most students don't do until senior year, but the CS program at this school sucks so that's no excuse to sit on my butt).

Do I have to read stuff to the input stream?  Do I read from the ZipInputStream or the FileInputStream?  How do I read the entirety of only one particular file in the *.zip (I can check that I have the correct file by using a for loop, and iterator, and an if statement, but how do I tell the damn thing to just read all of it)?

Once it's read into the correct input stream, do I need a ZipOutputStream to write it to something?  Do I just need a FileOutputStream?  Once that's sorted out, do I just create the file, write to it, and then close everything?  Does the sequence in which I close things matter?  How do I tell the output stream (whichever one I use) to just keep writing until you're out of things to write - obviously some sort of loop, but what do I use to set the conditions of the loop?

I can't figure it out just by looking at the documents, and I haven't found anything on stack overflow that does exactly what I'm doing.  I need to take something out of a zip file, create new temporary file in the same directory as the program, load the contents of that new file into my program (using a method I already created but which doesn't work with zipped files because ZipOutputStream doesn't allow me to read unsigned bytes), and then delete the temporary file.

I have only the vaguest idea what a buffer is.




Personal Projects / Re: SnakeOil - SaGa Frontier data editor
« on: July 24, 2015, 09:31:02 am »
New SnakeOil release: http://biolab.warsworldnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=296&p=1595#p1605

* Implement file I/O for a patch format using raw bytes in a zipped folder.
* Implement menu options to create and name a patch.
* Implement a base patch to be used as the default data settings.
* Implement action events to highlight byte/bit GUI components if they deviate from values in base patch.
* Implement file I/O for disc image.
* Make a better looking layout for item data editor. If possible fit this layout in a 1024 by 600 pixel frame.
* Incorporate feedback from users at GameFAQs.
* Consider using a JFrame instead of a popup for informational dialogs.
* Implement editors, patching, and file I/O for all known data tables in SaGa Frontier.
* Make a changelog generator.
* Make a data table preview generator.
* Make a better readme.

Two releases, one is the compiled SnakeOil executable and the other is the source code.

This release can read from and write to SCUS_942.30. You still need a tool like CD Mage to import and export that file from your SaGa Frontier disc image, but it is now possible to edit item data in the game.

This is the last release I'll post on this forum for a few weeks because I don't like bumping my own topic every other day.

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:10:49 am »
What's the point in having general discussion if you can't get off topic?  If you can't insult your friends, are they really your friends?

Personal Projects / Re: SnakeOil - SaGa Frontier data editor
« on: July 16, 2015, 01:24:44 am »
I'm having an error, anyone want to take a crack at it?

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 16, 2015, 01:23:27 am »
> Implying that there is something wrong with the Old Testament.

I rest my case. 

But first I have to execute my wife for talking back to me when I decided to sell my daughters into slavery.  And my son, that cheeky bastard had the gall to disobey me and eat shellfish while wearing mixed fibers - death for him too.


On rereading your post, I came across this, "I have already said that I think drinking alcohol should be illegal".

Incredible.  My great grandfathers were bootleggers - men like you made them quite a lot of money.  Granted they gambled it all away, but somewhere along the way the economy was boosted and my future was secured.

This is too good to pass up, I have to do a point-by-point now.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it:

Only the opinions of those that currently enforce the laws matter! People have never changed the legal system at all at any point in time! No one should ever consider any other views! The law is perfect!

Remember! You read it here first.
Yeah, it's their opinion that matters most to me because they're the ones whose opinion means my freedom or maybe even my life.  Besides that, the USA is functionally an oligarchy, due to undemocratic systems like the electoral college, the senate, and the supreme court; with bonus points for the citizens united ruling and privately negotiated treaties that overrule our laws.  Honorable mentions to winner-take-all in congressional races and presidential elections, and a participation trophy for the caucus system.  My point being that our opinions utterly do not matter to those in power - instead their opinions matter to us.

Technically I should call it undemocratic-republican, since we're a democratic republic, but that sounds awkward and it's too much to type.  When I say "undemocratic", assume I mean the political process of a democratic republic, not the political party.

No one on Earth is perfect. Don't ever forget that.

But someone doesn't have to be perfect to not do the things that you mentioned. Someone just has to be aware.

By the way, someone can make a mistake without brushing over it like it doesn't matter. Even if one did one of those things that you mentioned, one would be a much better person if one admitted to doing so.
Relationships are better when you find someone who holds themselves to the same standards that they hold others.  It sucks for me because I prefer women that are very charismatic and kind, but they can't admit that they were wrong.  It's a pain in the ass.

I have already said that I think drinking alcohol should be illegal, so I don't see your point. Unless you were trying to address the points of someone else in the (metaphorical) room here, I don't understand what the purpose of this comment was.
The point was made assuming you're a person who imbibes moderately.  Marijuana is way less dangerous than alcohol, except in people with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia.  I see violent crimes and sexual assaults committed by people who were drunk in the news every day, but I've never once seen a pothead do anything dangerous except drive 5 miles per hour in a 25 mph zone.

I understand your philosophy, and I would like for you and like-minded individuals to have a place to live life as you see it, but I would fight any attempt to force your lifestyle on me and others who don't accept it.  If anything letting you do your own thing in one place is good because it contains the craziness of your philosophy, reducing the damage it does to the nation as a whole.  If containment worked for communism in the cold war, it will work for other -isms today.  We could spin it as a "christian utopia" or something similar, and then make a bowl of poporn as they start killing one another over doctrinal differences.  Would make a good reality tv show.

The same thing can happen if you appeal to the minority in every single instance. Then that minority becomes the new majority, and the same problem occurs. It's just that the roles become flipped.

You leave things just as poorly off (if not worse) than when they originally started. Bravo!
I was being serious there, watch that movie.


But now that you've turned into Hugh Hefner incarnate (except not) you're far better off, huh? Are you sure you haven't just become more arrogant? Because, you know, that's what your words smack of to me: arrogance.

My opinions on the subject of alcohol are not based on sadsack-hood (or perceived sadsack-hood, as the case may be, as contrary to you I do not view virginity as something that equates to being a sadsack). They are based upon my personal beliefs that I have chosen to follow, because I strongly believe in them.

Sorry that you don't like them. I will point out however that that is actually why they are called personal beliefs, since you didn't seem to realise that personal beliefs are personal by nature in your post. Just because you claimed to hate alcohol whilst in reality you were just being in spite of your friends, because you were (by your own admission) being a sadsack and trying to find reasons to feel better about yourself, does not infer anything about my character.

Did you ever consider that I might dislike alcohol because I don't believe people have the right to alter their minds (which I believe because of my religious beliefs on the subject, which I do not discuss here because religious beliefs are personal)?

Seemingly not.

No, instead, you presumed something that you had no idea about.

Here's a tip for you: Don't presume.

Take it from me, I have presumed things far, far, far too often in the past, and I can tell you that a presumptuous outlook is not a good one to take for the vast majority of things.
I'm guessing you're Mormon?

It's true I was a sad sack, but mostly because I couldn't accept who I am.  I'm a loner.  I don't like people, I don't trust people, and I don't want to be around them.  I don't need them, for the most part.  What I do need is to be near living, growing things.  The days when I was homeless and camping in the woods - those were the happiest days of my life.  When I'm a middle-class software engineer I'll build a house in the woods and sleep under the stars again.

I was unhappy as a kid because I was trying to be something I'm not to fit in with people I had nothing in common with.  Now that I'm older and more confident in myself it's much easier to socialize (when I want to) and of course relationships can be a lot of fun, but most of the women in my life demand too much from me without giving me what I want and need in return.  I couldn't be Hugh Hefner because I need to be alone for several hours each day to function - I couldn't spend all my free time drinking and having sex because an excess of those things literally makes me sick.

That said, sex and booze in moderation are amazing, wonderful things.

Stating one's opinion is one thing. Implying your opinion to be fact is another.

You don't understand normal social rules do you? Or do people actually talk like that where you live?

I hope not.

If they do, don't even bother replying to this. I like to think that people are more accepting of others these days and don't bash one another based upon religious views. For a long time I have had negative opinions on... a certain area of North America... that I will not get into because I said earlier that I wouldn't. But, man, you're really pushing your luck. I'm extremely tempted to smack you upside the head right now for fitting a stereotype of that area that made me dislike it in the first place.

I am trying to look better on that area nowadays, but I can't change those views overnight. Especially when there are wiseguys waltzing around everywhere that only encourage my old viewpoints on the subject.
Implying that I'm a social retard isn't a very good defense when I accuse you of the same thing.  I-know-what-you-are-but-what-am-I went out of vogue in elementary school.  Besides that, accusing someone of using too many big words and then going all folksy and worldy-wise smells of trying too hard (or genuinely not having a good rebuttal).  As do threats of violence, even ones that are obviously hyperbole.

I write the way I do because - who would have thought it? - I'm an English nerd.  I love public speaking and writing.

Wow. You really do assume a lot, don't you?

You should stop assuming so much. I'm not kidding with you. Please take my advice.

Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusions about things as you. Someone is not callow, wrong and stupid just because they disagree with your views on sex and drugs. They just disagree with you. That's all.

It's a natural part of life.
You're right on this one, I hadn't assumed that you're a religious fanatic.  That is not meant an insult - more of a description - and there are much, much worse things you could be.

Gaming Discussion / Re: FF6 OST, full orchestral
« on: July 15, 2015, 09:53:32 pm »
My bad on the "full orchestral" call.  It does kinda suck after a while.

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 15, 2015, 09:50:18 pm »
Don't forget, you CAN sue for wrongful prosecution, incase they want to be lazy and not check every detail.
Months or years after the fact.

...Not everyone does these things, y'know. Nor does everyone consider those things to be equivalent in lawbreaking harshness.
I don't see how that matters, considering  you don't enforce the laws.

Those are things that an irresponsible, careless or otherwise disreputable person would do.
Most people aren't perfect most of the time.

Stop justifying irresponsibility with "everyone does it", when everyone doesn't actually do it. And even if they did, it does not change the fact that it is irresponsible: argumentum ad populum is faulty logic.
I never said that it's a reason to allow people to get away with stuff.  I don't know what you're trying to do here, you're just ranting about something tangential to the points I made, presumably because you can't counter the points themselves.

That's how a lot of dullards used to justify recreational drug use, before kangaroo courts decided to decriminalise and (in some absolutely atrocious cases) legalise them.
I live in a state with legalized marijuana.  I'd rather spend my tax money on something useful instead of paying cops to babysit consenting adults.  I'm think marijuana should be treated roughly the same as alcohol.

Frankly, I am sick of how people are still using "everyone is doing it" as an excuse, when it never was a legitimate excuse in the first place. It is something fit for nowhere else than a children's playground.
There's a movie called "In the Mouth of Madness" you should watch.  It's about the tyranny and ultimately the insanity of the majority.

Furthermore, for most people there are different levels of "lawbreaker".

We all have probably broken a minor law at one point or another, like using a sparkler in a state where sparklers are illegal (I did that once, and I really regret it as no one informed me as to its illegality. I was a young child at the time.), but that's not what is being talked about here.

For instance, I strongly believe that someone who gives someone else alcohol who is underage, or that doesn't stop for someone at a crosswalk should be charged with breaking the law as they are doing unacceptable things.
Illegal sparklers.  Hmmm.

That's not what I said, but you've clearly demonstrated the act of "putting words in someone's mouth".

Performers, composers, writers... it doesn't matter. Those who create should not be doing so for recognition. Creation is a self-fulfilling act that may be shared with others, and by all means should, but expectations should not be confused with it.
For a guy who thinks artists are attention whores, you sure use some flowery language.

I personally detest and am strongly against alcohol as something to be consumed, but that's a subject for another discussion.

With that said, do you not think that the problems known to arise in college binge drinking culture should be fixed?
I used to think this way, back when I needed a reason to look down on people who had more friends and sex than I did.

There must be at least on thread where people with irreconcilably opposing beliefs must toss their intellectual football back and forth until the conversation either runs out of steam or something embarrassing happens that makes people want to avoid it. LOL They're usually not very productive no matter which way they go.
I'm blowing off steam between finding and fixing bugs.  Ferreting out presumptuous BS is what I do for fun.

I've noticed that you can't have one of these conversations without two things. There's always someone misinterpreting something someone else said because a text only discussion is rather inadequate for a debate (it lacks tone of voice and body language, this for example makes sarcasm a bit iffy). And some times some people just don't pay close enough attention. The other requirement I'm having a hard time pinning down. It's like you always need someone with a belief that is rather extreme in one sense or another. Illogically so (this is a matter of opinion, yes).

That's just a theory I had. Feel free to bash it.

Rom hacking attracts people with very definite ideas of how world works, who often don't have very much experience with the world outside of old-school video games, their parents, and school.  They have serviceable vocabularies and a reasonable grasp of grammar, but they haven't spent enough time reading, thinking, and writing to truly develop their thoughts into a seamless and coherent philosophy.  Their lack of life experiences - especially experiences outside of their comfort zone - induces an Old Testament rigidity in their morality.

It's old-school nerd parochialism, back before being a nerd was cool.

I noticed too debaters on internet (and not only here) are mostly inflexible on their arguments, the reason why I don't debate much on forums or reddit. In real life, when debating, I come with the state of mind that I could maybe change my point of view after the conversation or at least discover a new point of view. I don't think everyone even realize this could be a possibility.
That's the point of communication and relationships.  If nobody is really listening (or if a specific type of poster is drawn to threads like this), then what's the point in participating?

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 14, 2015, 07:59:19 pm »
Everyone commits at least one crime every day.  Don't stop for a pedestrian waiting at a crosswalk?  That's a crime in my state.  Have some pirated music, games, or movies on your hard drive?  That's a crime.  Did one of your friends bring his cousin to your party, where she grabbed a beer?  Wait, she's only 20?  That's a crime.


When everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.

As for everything else, I bet that I have a lot more experience dealing with cops and criminals than most of the people who posted in response to me.  It's impossible to be homeless without learning about those sub-cultures.  You learn a lot about their mistakes, their failures, and this teaches you how to be a better criminal than them even if you have no intention of being a criminal.  Most of the "advice" I've heard smacks of naivety.

It doesn't matter if you have an alibi.  Winning at trial is mostly a matter of affording a good attorney, being attractive and personable so the jury likes you, and not having done something stupid like talking to the cops.  But even then you still lose time, money, and respectability.  Large corporations sometimes have an unofficial policy of not hiring anyone with an arrest record, let alone a conviction.  The only way to truly win this war is not to fight it in the first place, which mostly means don't commit crimes and make it very hard for the police to arrest you if they don't like you (if you're black, for instance).

Let's say you have an alibi that places you at dominos buying pizza with your credit card.  In that case all the cops have to do is find an "eyewitness" who can place you near the crime at the same time, and then pressure the judge to throw your alibi out.  Considering that most cops, prosecutors, and judges are buddy-buddy with one another, it isn't improbable that this could happen.  And sure you can win on appeal, but you still lose years of your life, most of your money and worldly possessions, friends, family, all kinds of things.

Even if the alibi is allowed, they don't actually have to disprove it.  They just need to cast doubt on it.  They need to make the jury - a group of people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty - doubt that you were buying a pizza with a credit card.  Bear in mind that we live in a nation where about a quarter of the population believes that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.  A jury of your peers is likely full of easily manipulated morons.

Most of the time it doesn't come to that.  The cops and prosecutors know that your alibi will eventually screw them, so they go for something else and threaten you with that until you plead to the charge they want to get.  It isn't hard.  All they have to do is plant some dope and guns in your house or car, claim you were resisting arrest, and beat the shit out of you or just shoot you.

Gaming Discussion / FF6 OST, full orchestral
« on: July 14, 2015, 07:41:52 pm »

6 HOURS.  Imagine how much work went into this.

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 14, 2015, 01:22:46 am »
OK? seriously, you guys do know what an alibi is right? thanks to technology, you pretty much have hard evidience that can prove you did NOT commit the crime, oh hello cell phone with gps with video camera on it. So many camera and video feeds in almost every store too. Whos paranoid now people, its literally logic for todays age.
Alibi's don't mean shit if you can get out of jail to get them or your court-appointed lawyer is too incompetent to get them.  Besides, most places don't have functioning cameras, their cameras aren't good enough to identify you, or their cameras cycle once every day or three.  Prosecutors rarely go to trial these days, now it's all about confessions and plea bargains, which is why it's best not to talk to the police.  Make them work to prosecute you.  If they're as lazy as most of their ilk, they'll quit.

yeah the trick to innocence is NOT to be suspicious.
The trick to getting away with things is to not look and act suspicious.

This only applies to whites and Asians though, if you're black or Hispanic you're already suspicious to most cops, so lawyer up.  Since we're on a rom hacking forum - which is the one of the nerdiest of all possible nerd obsessions - and nerds are typically white, I assume that 90% of us are white or at the very least part of the ethnic majority in our home countries. 

Being white or Asian deflects almost all police suspicion, but the rest is in how you act when the police notice you.

How should you act when the police notice you?  Like a little bitch.  Stand up for yourself, sure.  Give them your name, show ID (carefully, ask permission to get it first), answer any basic questions about who you are and what you're doing (and don't lie to the cops, that's illegal) but beyond that just say, "I'd like to answer your questions Officer, but my attorney has advised me not to speak to the police."  That's when you start acting like a bitch.  If you don't lie and you let the cops win the psychological mind-games, most of the time they'll let you go.

If they don't let you go your only hope is to shut up and lawyer up.  Make yourself as hard to prosecute as possible and they'll look for easier prey.

General Discussion / Re: Web Browser
« on: July 12, 2015, 10:33:07 pm »
Pale Moon is nice.  Had to look around for the HTTPS Everywhere fork, but otherwise everything works, but faster and with fewer freezes.

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 11, 2015, 10:03:10 pm »
And who is?

EDIT: I ask because I still couldn't tell who "the enemy" was after reading all that followed what I have quoted. Though I did think what followed was a bit silly because it felt like too much of a generalization (remember, cops are people too, not story book cliches).
Who the enemy is depends on the cop.  To shepherd-cops, the enemy is the very natural tendency to become violent when confused and frightened.  To guardian-cops, the enemy is people who prey (or seem like they prey) on the average people in your community.  To warrior-cops the enemy is everyone who isn't a cop or in collusion with the cops.  At least these are the 3 mentalities I encountered the most.

That case was the first thing that made me absolutely hate Rick Perry as a human being. Ignoring everything else the man has done in his career, positive and negative, he's still very easy to hate for his actions listed in that article.
What do you expect?  Politics in Texas is about rich people protecting one another.

What the government fears the most....the unknown enemy among us all. Its not the fear of the unknown, but what that unknown can accomplish that has them worried. Basicly watch the movie "Enemy of the State" you will get the jist of what he means.

Being wrongfully convicted can and has happen. Best way to prevent it, ALWAYS HAVE AN ALIBI. You cant have done the crime if you are somewhere else doing something else.
Or just don't talk to the police.

General Discussion / Re: Spoonyiest, you live in Nashville, right?
« on: July 11, 2015, 09:55:02 pm »
I never said you weren't right.  It's almost certainly his parents being pieces of shit.

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 11, 2015, 02:31:56 am »
Of course it isn't a realistic threat to you, you're not one of the enemy.

There are three mentalities in policing: the shepherd, the guardian/predator-of-predators, and the enforcer/warrior.

Shepherds are more social and often very well educated.  Their goal is to ensure the safety of their charges and to make sure that everyone is treated respectfully.  They see people who commit crimes as actual people.

These videos demonstrate the idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byE5HAdWAuE //The guy they're dealing with is either Satan or a death metal vocalist


Guardians are also called predators-of-predators because they are predators as much as the people they prey on, but they prefer to prey only on criminals.  They seek out macho busts on violent and dangerous criminals.  They consider themselves as something like Orcas; normal people are little fish too small to pay attention to, while criminals are sharks, squids, seals, and other things that prey on the little fish aka normal people.  They are dangerous if they think you're a criminal, and they are extremely clannish, but for the most part and for most people they are irritating but harmless.  If you are part of a group of people who seems threatening (like homeless people), however, they will go into predator mode real quick.  When dealing with dangerous, violent criminals this is a good thing.

We've all met cops like this, and the are the vast majority of cops in the USA.  I don't need any youtube videos for this.


Enforcers are called such because they don't exist to do good or to protect anyone except themselves - they enforce the laws, just or unjust, with equal zeal.  They see themselves as warriors and they consider everyone that isn't a cop (or not their kind of cop) civilians.  Civilians are lesser beings.

Since they are just there to enforce the laws and they don't care about actual being or doing good (or they consider lawful to be good), they are open to using the laws to benefit themselves.  If a person is breaking the law, that person is not good, and not good people are fair game for them to prey on.

To an enforcer, civilians are just criminals who haven't been caught yet.  And considering how confusing the American legal system is, anyone can be legally arrested at any time for any of a number of offenses.

Enforcers are the cops we all hate and fear.  They attack anyone they can get away with hurting, they prey on the poor, the weak, and the ignorant.  Worst of all, they hide behind shepherds and guardians and in doing so they tarnish all police officers with their actions.

General Discussion / Re: Spoonyiest, you live in Nashville, right?
« on: July 11, 2015, 02:01:31 am »
I was homeless for... let's see.  About 2 years and 2 months.  Damn, didn't realize it was that long.  Also managed to attend college for 2 of those years.

Either that guy is not giving the whole story, or his parents are inhuman pieces of garbage.
It's more common than you think.  For most people it's either this, medical bills (nothing like chemotherapy while homeless!), losing your job, addiction, or your parents/family/religion/cult kicking you out for being gay.

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 10, 2015, 10:26:38 pm »
Not glib at all.  I like the half of the video where the cop speaks best.

General Discussion / Re: Wrong place at the wrong time?
« on: July 10, 2015, 05:30:15 pm »
That was compelling, man.  I can't remember the last time I sat and watched a 49-minute Youtube video.
The guy speaks so fast I always have to rewatch the first 10 minutes.  I wish there was a PDF or website that explained his argument in fewer words.

And again another misconception, but not far off. In ye olden days, yes your social status dictated whether you were treated fairly or not. If you were a commoner, or one of vagabond type, and was accused of a crime, you probably be convicted without trial and what not, while nobles and wealthy were and still are treated more fairly(or incases found innocent but clearly guilty as ****). Money is till the powerhouse as it always was and is. If you going to fear something, least fear the facts, not fictions and things that cant happen or rarely happens(ex being hit by a meteorite).
Vagrancy was a crime for a very long time in many places.  Two offenses resulted in death.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16