Btw, the POV-Ray short code contests are more fun because the results are more impressive, at least visually. For example, see what can be done with 256 bytes of POV-Ray scripting language:
http://ozviz.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/exhibition/scc4/final/
What a marvelously egotistical and pompous response that doesn't even try to explain another solution.
Well, thanks. I'm flattered.
So not only do you sound like a dick, Warp, you sound like a dick without trying to contribute anything.
Personally I believe that when someone doesn't understand humor and instead resorts to namecalling and personal attacks, that's rather childish and pathetic. I prefer being a dick rather than infantile.
How about simply putting that "embed" line into a file named whatever.html and opening it in the web browser? Browsers are not very picky about the html file being 100% w3c-compliant.
Ok, I think this confusion has gone long enough.
"NASM" is not a programming language. NASM is an assembly language compiler, or in other words, an assembler. People keep talking about it as if it was a programming language. It's not. Saying "it's in NASM" is exactly as ridiculous as saying "it's in Visual Studio" or "it's in gcc". Those are not programming languages. They are compilers for a language. Equating the name of the compiler with the language is ridiculous.
NASM is not the only compiler which can compile assembly.
The correct way is: "It's in assembly. It compiles at least with NASM." The target platform should also be mentioned because assembly is rather platform-dependent.
1. Download an HTML page (whichever you want, www.google.com for example) by clicking "File" -> "Save page as" in your web browser and save it as an HTML-page on your computer.
2. Open the HTML-file with a text editor, like notepad, and delete all the text and replace it with the code SXL posted.
3. Open the file with a web browser while connected to the internet and it should work.
What a marvelously overcomplicated solution for such a trivial problem...
I once tried befunge because the basic idea was exotic and interesting. However, I got soon tired of its limitations.
Because of a limited, very strict stack (where you can't pop or swap values freely), and because of the lack of actual variables, I'm not even sure Befunge is Turing-complete (even assuming the fixed maximum size of the program wouldn't cause that already).
IMO the basic idea behind Befunge is exciting, but they ruined it with a too restricting implementation. I once thought about making a "better Befunge" with, for example, variables, maybe arrays (or lists), popping any value in the stack to the top of the stack, floating point numbers and integer literals larger than 9.
Don't lose hope. Life is beautiful, and definitely worth living. Don't waste it in sadness, grief and anger. Enjoy what is good and beautiful about life. If we lose hope, there's nothing left.
I once watched Primer because so many people had recommended it (as a definitely-not-dumbed-down-for-the-masses kind of movie). I must admit that I understood nothing of the movie. Nada. Zero. Nil. It was boring.
I suppose I wasn't really paying attention to it. Maybe I should try it again sometime, and this time really try to pay attention and understand what's going on.
If you liked Fightclub, you may also want to check (if you haven't seen them) Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
Another movie which requires a bit of paying attention to not to get lost is Memento. You should also check 12 monkeys.
Because of general outcry, feeling bad about rejected otherwise functional code, and having read over the rules at codegolf.com regarding this, I'm removing the requirement to not have trailing whitespace.
I have to say that it feels a bit unfair. I put a rather decent amount of work into getting rid of that trailing whitespace in the minimum amount of code, and now it all goes to waste.
Also, I made a post in another forum about this compo, and a couple of people made good submissions (eg. one python submission in 112 bytes), which I intended to forward to you. Now I'll have to go back and tell them that the rules have changed and that they will have to start over. I don't think they'll do it.
If the specification was clear and unambiguous (md5-sum of the result and all), why does it have to be changed now? Because people don't want to go through the trouble of getting rid of that trailing whitespace in their code?
What's next? Allow also "1" to be skipped because, you know, some mathematicians still think it *is* a prime number. And, you know, it makes the code easier when you don't have to take that value into account as a special case of the generic prime testing algorithm.
Arbitrary rule changes in the middle of a compo are irritating.
By whitespace, I meant all "stuff not required for the program to work correctly, including comments, etc".
Then the submitter should, rather obviously, remove any non-essential characters from his program before submitting. I don't think it should be up to OmnipotentEntity to try to guess what is mandatory and what isn't.
I thought that was the definition of whitespace.
Comments are "whitespace"? Never heard of that.
"Whitespace" consists of, at least, the space, tab, newline and linefeed characters.
IMO if whitespaces are required by the programming language, they should be included in the count. IOW, if you had something like (imaginary example in an imaginary language) "let a=5" then that would be 7 characters, not 6.
If whitespaces were not counted, it would be a bit controversial. For example, if you have a whitespace inside a string, should it be counted or not? Better count them all. More unambiguous.
If it's done in C, must it be standard-compliant, or is it enough that it compiles with gcc?
I think GCC is pretty standard compliant, isn't it?
gcc supports compiling standard-compliant C. It also supports compiling C from 20 years ago, which looks a bit different. For example, gcc will compile this C "program" just fine:
main(){puts("Hello");}
Mind you, that's the *entire* program. And it certainly is not standard-compliant (for instance, it lacks the proper #include, the return type of main() as well as its parameter type).
It's rather funny that some people truely think about the WWW as being the internet as a whole, and never stop to think that, for example, Skype or World of Warcraft don't use the WWW, yet they are connected to the internet and use it to communicate to others, and how that is possible.
(I wouldn't be at all surprised if some people ask questions like "do I need to have internet explorer running in order to use skype?")
A decent video card which can run Bioshock is not so expensive anymore. (For example I have a Radeon 3850, which is nowadays quite affordable, and runs Bioshock just fine.)
Of course if you have a Pentium2 with 256MB of RAM, then that's a completely different issue.
It's a good goal, but as noted, the best way to do this is to provide more ways to download the official AVIs, not to add new unofficial ones.
Especially given the amount of work and expertise that is poured into making those AVIs in order to get the best possible quality/size ratio.
I don't want to offend the original poster, but it's way too usual for people to just create videos with whatever default settings they feel like using, resulting in either humongous files, or alternatively videos that look like absolute crap. It's like they don't care, or they for some reason thought it doesn't really matter. Or they think that the "quality" slider (or whatever the particular encoding software is offering) is the only thing that can be fine-tuned when creating a video. These are not jpeg images; they are much more complicated.
There's actually a relatively recent movie which is basically based on this concept. Recommended for all TAS fans... :P
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435705/
