Final Fantasy Hacktics

I think if you clear the shading on her face near the right side of the picture and move that shading instead to the left (the area that's black in the reference picture), it won't look like the face is trying to look directly at the camera. Also, when it's small, the shading of the hair one strand from the right side of the image kind of gets outshined by the rest of the hair near it (making it kind of look less round than it would be). Keep going! Look at the improvement from the first post.

I don't think there are any specific policy changes that can be made to "fix" the ambiguous problem the United States of America faces. What I mean is, even if there were some set of calculated, time-appropriate, risk-assessed set of changes put forward by some expensive think tank and those changes were perfect, people inside the country would still feel that there is some great and somewhat unfathomable problem looming. However, it can be argued that the United States of America suffers from an almost equal disagreement in the highest tier of their legislative branch. That is, with basically two opposing sides that have mostly loyal components in law-making seats, votes are basically even. There are two sections: the House of Congress and the Senate. Both sections need at least 50% votes plus 1 vote for a majority (approval to pass on to President). When it comes down to basically two groups voting on things, it is not unlikely that one will vote one way and the other will for opposite of them in many cases. However, I put forward that the current two parties do not represent accurately all possible combinations of beliefs. Considering that the large parties basically vote instead of the people who hold office from those parties, this is a crucial point.

To deal with this situation, there are two ways I can conclude would shake up the deadlocking situation. One, it should be recognized that having a political career represents a tangible conflict of interest during voting. People will know which way you vote (and they should, in my opinion). Because of this, the legislator voting must weigh their choice to vote for or against a bill against something totally unrelated, which is the ambiguous idea of their own re-electability by their base. What makes this possible? Any of the following make this conflict of interest possible: the possibility of re-election, the public voting record, and the idea of fierce loyalty demanded by large parties. In the first case, it is unlikely that the constitutional section describing requirements for senators and congressmen would be amended to prevent re-election. In the second case, if voting is made completely anonymous, the people suffer the inability to fact check political puffery during election cycles. In the third case, it's unlikely that something born out of the polarizing effect of political disagreement will ever change to something less polarized. So, what can be done, and, further, what need are we trying to fill? The need is to represent more closely in the voting on bills the actual beliefs of the people that are being represented (as opposed to the parties that are represented) so that voting on bills reflects a less-narrow set of viewpoints. As to what can be done, we need more people to run for public office. I think every last single one of those people participating in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations should run for whatever they're qualified to run for by age and also, for the presidency, by birth in the United States of America. With the ideas and emotions fresh in their minds and hearts, they have practically groomed themselves for the role: they don't like the amount of power corporations have (outside of advertising products and services and making revenue off of said products and services), they distrust the intentions of people who put the idea of making money at the forefront (i.e. referencing Wall Street's speculative nature versus anything that is more of a constructive investment-oriented, e.g. micro-loans; or, the idea of the success of a CEO is measured primarily by the financial state they leave the corporation in), and they likely know the importance of communication (as bizarre as seeing their seemingly jazz-hands inspired version of communication looks to someone outside of the demonstration). You wouldn't have to vote for one of them, but I think their benefits outweigh whatever experience, voting record, or party the people from a major party have to offer.

It sure was!

Raven's hair in the TV show always looked like a bad wig to me. It's not fair to make it look like hair now.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but this is tort law territory. The point is, exercising your freedom of speech before and after this bill will not be illegal. However, you can certainly be sued for your actions if they're actionable. If you assault someone (this is a threat of violence), batter someone (this is any unconsented to physical contact), falsely imprison someone (detaining them or preventing their movement without their consent), intentionally inflict emotional distress upon someone, defame a person's character to a 3rd party in written format (libel) or verbal format (slander), invade someone's privacy (unconsented use of the person's information for commercial purposes, intrusion upon the person's day-to-day affairs or their seculsion, publishing information about the person that falsely depicts the person or their actions, public discolusre of private facts about the person), or appropriate a person's identity for your own benefit, you can be sued under tort law, but that doesn't make the tort (the damage) committed against the person illegal. There are other things that can make any of those things illegal, sure, but the point is that none of those things by themselves are crimes in the United States of America. You will never (and probably should never) have any right to get someone thrown into prison for non-criminal activity. However, it is your express right to sue someone if their behavior is actionable (that is, if it falls into one of those categories, can be proved in a court of law, and you take it to court in the form of a law suit). Does this solve your problem? No, not really. What remedy can you get out of a tort lawsuit? Money? An injunction against the person in a repeated or continuing case? That prevents one person from treating you badly at great personal cost.

Not to change the topic at hand but to show a parallel, there have been many anti-Sharia Law bills put forward stating basically that Sharia Law will not be permitted (within the state proposing it). However, even if such a bill passes into law, the parts of it that were illegal or tortuous before the bill passed will continue to be illegal and/or tortuous afterwards. That is, killing someone who gives up the religion of Islam still results in the act of manslaughter, which may or may not be criminal depending on malice aforethought and several other things. Beating someone up for dressing immodestly (without the person's consent) is still a tort; the person could sue for those damages.

Anyway, it's sad that children (who may see adults or popular topics as authoritative and unquestionably true) have to deal with this as part of their environment growing up, but you've no doubt seen (if you use YouTube) the umpteen videos about "It gets better!" Talking about appropriate behavior amongst peers, helping someone when they are unable or unwilling to protect themselves (though you may have to defend this choice in court), and generally exercising your freedom of speech to act as a counter-weight to a malicious or otherwise damaging source's freedom of speech is what you are left with.

That said, the first person who steps into the territory of criminal law with that law in mind will very likely be criminally charged, because its still criminal even with that law. Would the sentence severity take into consideration that law? I don't see why not, but there are all the other precedents to consider as well. There is no "getting away with it" if it's criminal, and, for the cases where it isn't illegal, there is only "getting away with it" if you don't help yourself to your legal rights in the presence of actionable behavior as described by tort law.

From a personal place, I think taking the actions of others to heart in part is damaging to yourself. On the other hand, if you attempt to understand what and why the other person is doing what they're doing, I think it's uplifting. It misdirects the brunt of whatever anger, sadness, or injustice you might immediately feel towards the person, and it provides you with an outside of the situation perspective. Imagine if you never grasped the concept of what a motive is and its serious purpose in driving human actions. You would miss out on some incredible things, like being able to understand or respect the feelings of a group of people who have just deposed their dictatorial leader largely by themselves. Without understanding the motive, it's just people cheering amid pictures of a dead man's body, right? The point is, figure out why the person (or people) behave the way they do, and use that as part of your strength. In the case of a bully, they may not know any better; they may know perfectly well. It may be partially unintentional; it may be completely sinister. If you don't express or have any curiosity about it, then you're just going to be mad/angry/sad/depressed/alienated/isolated/frustrated about something that can never ever change, since it already happened, but you can educate yourself about it (and move on in the process to protect yourself).

Here you go if you want it: RichTextBox Syntax Highlighting (for // comments).

Demo is in /RichTextBox Syntax Highlighting/bin/Release/RichTextBox Syntax Highlighting.exe

I wrote a bot to input the data into that other program based on that file you provided. I don't guarantee the program's work, but maybe it'll help you along. The ATTACK.OUT based on me running the program already is in the .zip with the bot since this program is probably a one or two time use at max thing. It took about 15 minutes to run through your file (501 entries), you have to have the attack editor open before opening the bot program, and you can't use your computer while it's working after you've loaded the file into the bot program.

Attack Out Editor (bot)

Good luck, I guess! I hope it worked.

Quoting the image (a screenshot for the sake of a screenshot) fits that definition. USING the underlying work is something different. I could take a screenshot of said article and call it Fair Use. USING the work that made the article up is obviously something different. The scenarios are the same.

The irony of him complaining that you don't respect copyright laws even when his articles use copyrighted material (scenes from video games) as teaching tools is not lost on me.

Quote from: Phlashblazer on July 29, 2011, 07:48:20 pmthe actual option to check it is greyed out

Image mode needs to be a format with indexed color.

How can that woman's top have any form of slack? Gravity just give up?

Killing people so you can see in the dark.

Well, make sure you have only 16 items (colors or transparency) in your index.

In the meantime, I was able to import this version with ShiShi's program properly: GeoFull354.bmp

This is the color profile of what you've posted.

Closer to what it probably should be.

Let me preface this advice by saying I have no clue about spritesheets. However, you've said two important things. First, ShiShi's program spits your spritesheet (a BMP image) out weird. Second, a suggested fix involving altering a section of the resulting file with a hex editor is not usable because the values (read: data locations) do not exist. Now, combine that with the fact that you've said you also tried "to import the 16bitcolor BMP image". I believe it's highly likely you are saving your BMP file wrong, resulting in ShiShi's program handling it the way that it does. Namely, you likely need to assign a color profile to your bitmap file. This indexes the colors instead of storing each pixel's color individually. It may not be obvious, but a "bit map" is a list (read: "map") of bits (0 or 1). What does it mean to have a 16-bit color BMP image? It means each pixel gets a whopping 16 bits (2 bytes; 16 sets of 0 or 1) allotted to store the color of the pixel. It does not mean your bitmap image is limited to 16 colors. What you likely want to do is, within your image editing program, open your image the way it is now (where the colors look correct). Find within the program where you can assign a color profile to the image (also known as "Indexed Color" or "Palette"). A good program will let you specify a custom profile based on your existing image, however you may end up putting the colors in by hand (depending on the interface). What this leaves you with is not a 16-bit color BMP image but a BMP image that uses X-number of colors and the pixel locations reference the index of colors for which color to display (so, changing the color in the index would change ALL pixels that reference that color in the index). Hopefully, you can see why this would be an easy choice for console game development that is limited by space (by the distribution media) and by memory (the capabilities of the console to reference things), as opposed to just being some arbitrary hoop you have to jump through.