Gaia question

Wow we don't even talk about this game anymore, anyways, the question is, what does GSI stand for ?
Gateway is for G, what matt sais

Well I hope that one of you knows.
MAtt setup this Wiki on his site, look : http://scriptprodigy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Aleena says its Gensym Standard Interface

Omlett wrote:

Aleena says its Gensym Standard Interface

Lmfao, Omlett! We should call gaia and see what they say.

Or: I could just talk to a developer I know whenever I get the chance to.

the unintelligible wrote:

or: I could just talk to a developer i know whenever i get the chance to.

Man with the connections.

The UnIntelligible wrote:

Or: I could just talk to a developer I know whenever I get the chance to.

Works as well.

Artificial wrote:

Man with the connections.

The man with the plan

The UnIntelligible wrote:

The man with the plan

The man who quotes.

PHP is a faggot

Dat Logo.

be quiet .

K, everyone can edit it now.

Omlett wrote:

Aleena says its Gensym Standard Interface

I'm almost certain this is wrong. I googled Gensym Standard Interface and came up with something about a set of C libraries. GSI is built upon this (which is in PHP, not C).

The UnIntelligible wrote:

Or: I could just talk to a developer I know whenever I get the chance to.

If you mean Edy, I'm going to laugh at you when he doesn't know.

Personoid wrote:

I'm almost certain this is wrong. I googled Gensym Standard Interface and came up with something about a set of C libraries. GSI is built upon this (which is in PHP, not C).

I'm surprised you actually bothered to google information provided by Aleena; the authenticity of what (s)he says generally isn't exactly what I'd call reliable.

Personoid wrote:

If you mean Edy, I'm going to laugh at you when he doesn't know.

Oh, you mean the dev that owned you? The one who made you cry to Pirate? Nope. Not him, though.

Surprised you actually had the audacity to show up here, purse. You being a general butt-of-every-joke and all. How's C going? (Lol.) How about Clojure? The useless language that no one really cares about. What about your futile pursuit at becoming an entreprenuer? (What was it that you called yourself? Wantreprenuer?)

Still completely clueless as before? What about the fabled contrast between a struct and a class. Still a reject on SO (Stack Overflow) I presume.

Finally, what about your ugly mug?



Personoid. Newton B. Smartt. The mail-man. The delivery boy.

The UnIntelligible wrote:

I'm surprised you actually bothered to google information provided by Aleena; the authenticity of what (s)he says generally isn't exactly what I'd call reliable.




Oh, you mean the dev that owned you? The one who made you cry to Pirate? Nope. Not him, though.

Surprised you actually had the audacity to show up here, purse. You being a general butt-of-every-joke and all. How's C going? (Lol.) How about Clojure? The useless language that no one really cares about. What about your futile pursuit at becoming an entreprenuer? (What was it that you called yourself? Wantreprenuer?)

Still completely clueless as before? What about the fabled contrast between a struct and a class. Still a reject on SO (Stack Overflow) I presume.

Finally, what about your ugly mug?



Personoid. Newton B. Smartt. The mail-man. The delivery boy.

Edy didn't own me. We've discussed this countless times. He was wrong. Period.
My information has long been public. I kept a blog under my real name, remember? I posted links to that blog here.

I don't recall any mention of learning either of those languages.
Any language with sufficient functionality that works on the JVM is not something you can call "useless." That kind of statement is so uninformed that I'm not even going to bother insulting you.
Wantrepeneur is a "joke" term. It was never meant to be taken seriously, and your taking it seriously is only further evidence of how horribly I get to you. Do you ever stop thinking about me?
As for my becoming an entrepreneur, it's on its way. It's taken a long time to get everything in order, but it won't be long now. I'd be surprised you're so naive as to think I would have some vague goal like "hm, someday I'm going to do this" if you weren't so eager to think lowly of me. The sad part is that the majority of our arguments consist of you making a fool of yourself, being unable to counter my arguments, and resulting to attacking me ad hominem.

I'm ashamed that I ever thought you had any kind of potential. I'm disappointed in you.

Edit: I didn't cry Pirate. I was telling him about what a moron Edy was being. I recall him telling you that I exercised a large amount of self-restraint given the guy's position as a Gaia dev.

Edit 2: Self-restraint meaning I didn't call him "a fucking dumbass."

Personoid wrote:

Edy didn't own me. We've discussed this countless times. He was wrong. Period.
My information has long been public. I kept a blog under my real name, remember? I posted links to that blog here.

Yes, because the purpose of putting very minimalist information in a self-contained post is an obvious attempt at "exposing" you of some sort. Lol.

Personoid wrote:

I don't recall any mention of learning either of those languages.
Any language with sufficient functionality that works on the JVM is not something you can call "useless." That kind of statement is so uninformed that I'm not even going to bother insulting you.

That's great. Because I honestly doubt you could. Most of what you do know is either very limited and/or plain invalid/intertwined/misconstrued.

Personoid wrote:

Wantrepeneur is a "joke" term. It was never meant to be taken seriously, and your taking it seriously is only further evidence of how horribly I get to you. Do you ever stop thinking about me?

It's funny how this post clearly shows that this is the other way around. And clearly satirically mentioning the idiom "wantreprenuer" means I'm taking it seriously. Your assumptions are still laughably inaccurate.

Personoid wrote:

As for my becoming an entrepreneur, it's on its way. It's taken a long time to get everything in order, but it won't be long now. I'd be surprised you're so naive as to think I would have some vague goal like "hm, someday I'm going to do this" if you weren't so eager to think lowly of me.

Have fun setting yourself up for failure. I'll be there to savor that day. Also, what I think lowly of you (if you will) is all pretty much warranted. Just for clarification.

Personoid wrote:

The sad part is that the majority of our arguments consist of you making a fool of yourself, being unable to counter my arguments, and resulting to attacking me ad hominem.

It's funny because the majority of our arguments usually never have a concrete basis. It's usually over something woefully pointless and stupid that truly has no right or wrong. And when we do have such arguments, I'm pretty sure the case is quite the contrary, Smartt.

Personoid wrote:

I'm ashamed that I ever thought you had any kind of potential. I'm disappointed in you.

In other words, this is your way of crying me a river. It's too bad that I've been disappointed in you from the get-go. So suffice to say, there's no shame in my game

@Edit: We've been over this, purse. You can't call someone clearly smarter than you--someone clearly superior--an idiot in any way, shape or form.

@Edit2: See above. It wouldn't have a valid premise. It would be just as meaningless as the rest of what you say is.

Furthermore, have a nice day.

The UnIntelligible wrote:

Yes, because the purpose of putting very minimalist information in a self-contained post is an obvious attempt at "exposing" you of some sort. Lol.

Yeah, I'm sure you had some other goal in mentioning my full name and posting a picture of me. How stupid of me.

The UnIntelligible wrote:

It's funny how this post clearly shows that this is the other way around. And clearly satirically mentioning the idiom "wantreprenuer" means I'm taking it seriously. Your assumptions are still laughably inaccurate.

How so? I don't see anything that could possibly lead you to that conclusion.

The UnIntelligible wrote:

Have fun setting yourself up for failure. I'll be there to savor that day. Also, what I think lowly of you if you will is all pretty much warranted. Just for clarification.

The UnIntelligible wrote:

It's funny because the majority of our arguments usually never have a concrete basis. It's usually over something woefully pointless and stupid that truly has no right or wrong. And when we do have such arguments, I'm pretty sure the case is quite the contrary, Smartt.

What were some of the recent arguments we've had?
The first two that come to mind are "hg vs git" and "struct vs class in C++" (or "Is it possible to write OO code in C?").
Who "won" those? I recall you being woefully stupid on the topic of hg vs git (you claimed that git's popularity somehow made it a better candidate despite that hg has a plugin for interacting with git repos).
As for class vs struct, http://pastebin.com/9ghMUGAt

The UnIntelligible wrote:

In other words, this is your way of crying me a river. It's too bad I've been disappointed in you from the get-go. So suffice to say, there's no shame in my game

@Edit: We've been over this, purse. You can't call someone clearly smarter than you--someone clearly superior--an idiot in any way, shape or form.

@Edit2: See above. It wouldn't have a valid premise. It would be just as meaningless as the rest of what you say is.

Do you even understand our argument?
Edy told me that the fix could not be done in GSI because you cannot trust client data. That is absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of using GSI (in this case) is to avoid trusting client data.
My solution requires a very small change to the friend request method of GSI.
1. When someone attempts to add a user, a GSI request is made. When this request is made, it should be identical to making a friend request on the actual site (i.e. that user gets a pending request, which didn't happen the last time I checked).
2. When someone "accepts" a request, verify that they have a pending request from said user.

That's all. Fixed. No need for changing every game. This fix would be compatible with all games.

Edy's fix would only be compatible with updated games and towns 2.0. I tried to tell him that wasn't necessary, but he wasn't able to understand what I was saying. I'm completely justified in telling someone with several times more experience than me that their solution is fucking stupid and that they should consider a new job if they aren't capable of understanding that it's possible to verify the authenticity of submitted data on the other end.

Edit/Correction: The use of GSI here is not to avoid trusting client data. It's actually to avoid having to alter every game to solve a problem. In other words, it's exactly what Edy should have been doing- well, telling someone else to do. Instead, he avoided the tool that exists for the purpose I'm pointing out, and is going for a much more complicated route.

Benefit of my solution: Friend requests in games get fixed. Now, not later. And a lot less work is required.

Personoid wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure you had some other goal in mentioning my full name and posting a picture of me. How stupid of me.

You obviously didn't understand my post at all, unsurprisingly.

Personoid wrote:

How so? I don't see anything that could possibly lead you to that conclusion.

Oh, I don't know. Thin air, maybe. lol.

Personoid wrote:

What were some of the recent arguments we've had?
The first two that come to mind are "hg vs git" and "struct vs class in C++" (or "Is it possible to write OO code in C?").
Who "won" those? I recall you being woefully stupid on the topic of hg vs git (you claimed that git's popularity somehow made it a better candidate despite that hg has a plugin for interacting with git repos).
As for class vs struct, http://pastebin.com/9ghMUGAt

Won't address our previous arguments considering we've been over this myriads of times. Moreover, congratulations on googling C/C++ OOP code.

K&R-style braces? You embody the meaning of non-programmer.

Spoiler

Personoid wrote:

Do you even understand our argument?
Edy told me that the fix could not be done in GSI because you cannot trust client data. That is absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of using GSI (in this case) is to avoid trusting client data.
My solution requires a very small change to the friend request method of GSI.
1. When someone attempts to add a user, a GSI request is made. When this request is made, it should be identical to making a friend request on the actual site (i.e. that user gets a pending request, which didn't happen the last time I checked).
2. When someone "accepts" a request, verify that they have a pending request from said user.

That's all. Fixed. No need for changing every game. This fix would be compatible with all games.

Edy's fix would only be compatible with updated games and towns 2.0. I tried to tell him that wasn't necessary, but he wasn't able to understand what I was saying. I'm completely justified in telling someone with several times more experience than me that their solution is fucking stupid and that they should consider a new job if they aren't capable of understanding that it's possible to verify the authenticity of submitted data on the other end.

Nothing more or less than nonsensical ramble. I've explained to you what you were wrong in regard to. What you're doing is twisting the argument now. None of our past confrontations are up for debate at this point.

In any case, this seems to be going around in circles like most of our arguments usually tend to do. I'm going to concede with the following points:

• You aren't a programmer.
  
• You're not going to be an entreprenuer.
  
• You're still an idiot.
  
• Edy owned you.
  
• "Classes are structs."
  
• "I'm going to be an entreprenuer when I grow up!"
  

Need I say more?

Edit: Oh and, Edy and I still laugh at you to this very day.

"Nothing more or less than nonsensical ramble."
Of course. Every time.

Final notes: I didn't say classes are structs. I said (paraphrasing, with line breaks shown for where I hit send):
In C++
classes are basically structs.
there is only one difference: in structs, members are public by default.

You completely ignore the rest of what I said and hinge your insult on bad wording (which has never been my strong suit).

I mount my platypus.

Personoid wrote:

"Nothing more or less than nonsensical ramble."
Of course. Every time.

You should know the routine by now. If it's invalid/senseless, I won't bother directly addressing it; I'll let your diction do that for me. What you did was type up a tl;dr post for an argument that was already concluded and consolidated over the course of a few Towns sessions.

Personoid wrote:

Final notes: I didn't say classes are structs. I said (paraphrasing, with line breaks shown for where I hit send):
In C++
classes are basically structs.
there is only one difference: in structs, members are public by default.

I'm more than pretty sure that isn't what you originally said. Granted, below you said it was probably at fault of bad wording. I don't entirely buy that. But at the same time I can't necessarily refute that either (hence I'm declaring a stalemate).

Personoid wrote:

You completely ignore the rest of what I said and hinge your insult on bad wording (which has never been my strong suit).

See above. For a very solid reason. I think even you realize that we can agree to disagree that this is utterly pointless and repetitive.

Personoid wrote:

I mount my platypus.

You're clever.

Edit: That was obviously sarcasm if you didn't catch it the first time around.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-mount-my-platypus

Very original there, Newton.

Yeah, a direct quote from a meme was clearly meant to be original.

This time, we're (the platypus and I) leaving.

Personoid wrote:

Yeah, a direct quote from a meme was clearly meant to be original.

You were using it in a context that you thought would come off as clever. To say the least, you sir failed.

Edit: I'd also like to expand on a previous point that when you brought up classes vs. structs you said it because you were suggesting structs are surrogates for classes when they're clearly two discrete data structures (with a few opaque similarities). You were explicitly comparing the two as if you were insinuating they were the identically the same thing. I don't think it was bad wording on your end, I think it was you being irrationally pedantic considering you were paraphrasing from a book at that time.

Further, C's OO-capability transcends beyond that of mere structs notwithstanding that by definition it is not an OOP language. You're able to prototype or emulate OOP similar to what you're able to do in Lua. (Yes, I like Lua.)

C: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3241932/is-the-c-programming-language-object-oriented
Lua: http://lua-users.org/wiki/SimpleLuaClasses

Personoid wrote:

This time, we're (the platypus and I) leaving.

Good riddance. Until we meet again.

Edit #2: Ahaha. I see you were called out in the past by GAMEchief for being pretentious as well.

http://forum.logicalgamers.com/members/personoid-page3.html#visitor_messaging

The UnIntelligible wrote:

You were using it in a context that you thought would come off as clever. To say the least, you sir failed.

Edit: I'd also like to expand on a previous point that when you brought up classes vs. structs you said it because you were suggesting structs are surrogates for classes when they're clearly two discrete data structures (with a few opaque similarities). You were explicitly comparing the two as if you were insinuating they were the identically the same thing. I don't think it was bad wording on your end, I think it was you being irrationally pedantic considering you were paraphrasing from a book at that time.

Further, C's OO-capability transcends beyond that of mere structs notwithstanding that by definition it is not an OOP language. You're able to prototype or emulate OOP similar to what you're able to do in Lua. (Yes, I like Lua.)

C: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3241932/is-the-c-programming-language-object-oriented
Lua: http://lua-users.org/wiki/SimpleLuaClasses



Good riddance. Until we meet again.

Edit #2: Ahaha. I see you were called out in the past by GAMEchief for being pretentious as well.

http://forum.logicalgamers.com/members/personoid-page3.html#visitor_messaging

I specified C++ in my original point, which are identical except that classes have private members by default where structs have public members by default. That is the only difference between classes and structs in C++.

As for my argument with GAMEchief, I was correct.

Edit: As you can't see my side of the argument with him, it'll look as if I didn't understand HTTPOnly cookies. On the contrary, I was pointing out that HTTPOnly cookies do not render cookie grabbing on Gaia impossible.

Edit2:

To the contrary, the flash games do not have access to the cookies. An HTTPOnly cookie means it can only be read by the browser during HTTP requests only, not anything within the browser (including JavaScript and flash). The flash game sends the request to the server, during which the browser sends the session cookie (as it's an HTTP request), and the server sends the response after validating the session. There is nothing a phisher can do in-browser to figure out the session cookie value. The phisher can send as many page requests as he wants, which will also send the session, but the neither JavaScript nor the flash games themselves are able to read the cookies - merely interpret the response. Since the response won't include the cookie value, there is no method of reading it.
I could write an analogy for you, but I assume you understand that.

The response does, in fact, contain the cookie, and it can be read.

Edit3: I'm clearly referring to the 109 method of GSI.

What the hell is Gaia?

Stormie wrote:

What the hell is Gaia?

Family guy always humors me :')

Gaia Developer Database could not send your confirmation mail. Please check your e-mail address for invalid characters.

Mailer returned: Unknown error in PHP's mail() function.

aaaaaaand no one can post because no one can confirm their email because your php script to send the emails is broken

I would just like to thank you both for entertaining me muchly.

Edit: As you can't see my side of the argument with him, it'll look as if I didn't understand HTTPOnly cookies. On the contrary, I was pointing out that HTTPOnly cookies do not render cookie grabbing on Gaia impossible.

HTTPOnly should render cookie grabbing impossible (if properly implemented). If you do have a workaround (probably an ajax call to a page (gsi) that shows the SID) isn't cookie grabbing.

Flareboy323 wrote:

aaaaaaand no one can post because no one can confirm their email because your php script to send the emails is broken

Matt probably doesn't know how to set up a mailserver because he's a noobface.

Drama on LG, too bad their argument is a big wall of text

Artificial wrote:

Matt probably doesn't know how to set up a mailserver because he's a noobface.

I have one setup, just don't use it. And havn't configured the wiki for it.

Artificial wrote:

I would just like to thank you both for entertaining me muchly.



HTTPOnly should render cookie grabbing impossible (if properly implemented). If you do have a workaround (probably an ajax call to a page (gsi) that shows the SID) isn't cookie grabbing.

I did say that I meant m=109, and I did say I understand how HTTPOnly works.

Edit: Also, you're very welcome. I'll be staying out again for the next half year. As this cycle seems to go.

Personoid wrote:

I'll be staying out again for the next half year

Thank God.

Artificial: That's what I'm here for.

Side-note: I wonder how many times this marks for occasions in which Personoid has been owned under.

Edit:

Matt: Why again do we need a mailing system setup? Isn't the revise-and-conquer concept sufficient enough?

Personoid wrote:

As this cycle seems to go.

Wording really isn't one of your strong points. You mean come and go* But then again, so is a lot of other attributes of yours (and I even go as far as to daresay coding is one of said weak points).

Zanzabar wrote:

Family guy always humors me :')

I didn't get the reference. Response seemed pretty generic to me.

The UnIntelligible wrote:

Matt: Why again do we need a mailing system setup? Isn't the revise-and-conquer concept sufficient enough?

Eh, he created an account, its public to edit but if you create an account you can't verify it I guess, don't need it at all.

MattSmith wrote:

Eh, he created an account, its public to edit but if you create an account you can't verify it I guess, don't need it at all.

Oh, I didn't know it was publicly editable. I figured you needed an account.

Also FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU all my Gaia files are on my laptop's hard drive, which is currently with my dad somewhere cuz my laptop broke