. /../GOES Extended Network/ 123
r'lyeh sweet r'lyeh
written by Neuzd on Jan 23, 2009 13:58
Cryoburner said:
So, does that mean you tested it with Firefox and some other browser, or with no browsers at all? : D
Nice one : D
I made my tests with 3 browsers:
Safari, FireFox 2/3, IE 6/7.

I admit once the site was finished I didn't tried again except with Safari and Firefox3 (more like a regular user), so javascript "supposed" fixes have been the cause of these new errors.

Made a live fix, though.
Several things should already work right now.
written by Cryoburner on Jan 23, 2009 16:49
You test in all those browsers, but not Opera? 97% of all awesome people on the internet use Opera, so not supporting Opera is equivalent to not supporting awesome people. : D

Opera includes some useful features for web development too, and you can use small screen rendering mode to test how your site will look on Opera enabled cell phones and other portable devices.

The GOES site does appear to be functional again though. : )
doing pushups
written by Megagun on Jan 23, 2009 16:51
Neuzd understands does not fully comprehend the failingness awesomeness of Opera.

Cryo edit: Fixed some typos. : P
└> last changed by Cryoburner on January 23, 2009 at 17:07
r'lyeh sweet r'lyeh
written by Neuzd on Jan 23, 2009 17:23
The website not working perfectly in all browser is a fault of my tests obviously, I don't mean to offcially not support a particular browser.

The last problem was caused by an optimization of the forms in the pages.
I forgot to remove a closing tag when reducing all the forms to a single one, and both Safari and Firefox3 didn't generate errors so I didn't notice it, but your exceptions report was verbose enough to let me correctly guess the problem even before seeing the pages' code.

I have some reasons to explain why I didn't test so well my app, but all that would sound just as an excuse.
I'll never deny my lazyness, so just be patient and I'll try to fix and improve it for the best.
written by Xenomorph on Jan 23, 2009 17:28
People said:
$WEBBROWSER sucks, $OTHER_WEB_BROWSER is totally awesome
All web browsers suck. Mega edit: Except Firefox.

There, it had to be said. Now can people get on with more important stuff?
└> last changed by Megagun on January 23, 2009 at 18:40
doing pushups
written by Megagun on Jan 23, 2009 18:42
Xenomorph said:
There, it had to be said. Now can people get on with more important stuff?
Windows sucks, Linux is totally awesome
night fth
written by Ferinex on Jan 23, 2009 20:30
Cryoburner said:
You test in all those browsers, but not Opera? 97% of all awesome people on the internet use Opera, so not supporting Opera is equivalent to not supporting awesome people. : D

Opera includes some useful features for web development too, and you can use small screen rendering mode to test how your site will look on Opera enabled cell phones and other portable devices.

The GOES site does appear to be functional again though. : )
I use Opera.
There, me and Cryo should be enough evidence... We make up at least 60% of the awesome on the internet.
written by Ajax on Jan 23, 2009 21:18
Ferinex said:
We make up at least 60% of the awesome on the internet.
So there are 3.33 people on the internet that use Opera?

Of course, that's going by the exact calculation of 60%. It means there are either 2 people that use Opera or 3 people that use Opera, but not 4 or more
hello! :) felysian
written by Hello! :) on Jan 24, 2009 03:50
Ajax said:
Ferinex said:
We make up at least 60% of the awesome on the internet.
So there are 3.33 people on the internet that use Opera?

Of course, that's going by the exact calculation of 60%. It means there are either 2 people that use Opera or 3 people that use Opera, but not 4 or more
I also use Opera as my standard browser. And since I'm awesomer than Ferinex & Cryo, I at least make up that odd bit and the 100% awesomost on the internet. : P
written by Cryoburner on Apr 21, 2009 07:37
Well, that got off topic. : P

Anyway, I was just perusing the GOES Extended Network, and noticed some anomalies on the Stars Scientific Data page. Namely, that the coolest S03 star is supposedly -273 C, or approximately absolute zero. Needless to say, that is probably just not possible. Clicking through to the list of S03s, I found two stars, RUBYFLASH and MORITZ, having that surface temperature. Visiting the actual stars in Noctis, I could see that this was clearly wrong, as the stars were actually 5798 C and 5570 C respectively. I also noticed that the page lists MORITZ as having a mass of 5844, which is also clearly wrong. There's an S04 with a suspiciously low temperature as well.

I'm guessing that some data got corrupted during the update. : )
written by 4616599 on Apr 21, 2009 08:43
Thoght I'd add that outer rim stars(my outer rim stars that I checked anyway) have Parsis co-ords of 0,0,0 according to GOESXNet.
r'lyeh sweet r'lyeh
written by Neuzd on Apr 21, 2009 10:47
Well, the Scientific Data are all gathered BY HAND (actually Skinnymon's hands) and so there could be "human errors" [EDIT: should have I said paws/felisian?]
There are several details that go with that page and there are several "moments" in which the error may have occurred.
That page is in reality still in its first version and does not take advantage of the DB I put together.
Be patient (Skinnymon in primis) I'll have all fixed, one day.

Outer rim stars (and even some closer ones) were out of the Triceratops scan when I ran it.
I should change the 0;0;0 to OUT OF RANGE, at least that would be correct. [EDIT: done. WESTOS will still display 0; 0; 0....gotta keep anomalies "coherent"]

Again I can't say other than to be patient.


Thanks for the feedbacks...and for using GOESXNET : )
└> last changed by Neuzd on April 21, 2009 at 17:12
going nowhere fast...
written by Skinnymon on Apr 21, 2009 17:52
Cryoburner said:
I'm guessing that some data got corrupted during the update. : )
There might be some errors involving the data input procedure particularly involving cut/paste from my original notes. (neuzd could show you the input page so you can see how that could happen). It's my fault I'm sure. Thanks for the input, I'll recheck my data for those stars. Which S04?. (I still have everthing in text, I'm sure.)



EDIT: OK, FIXED. In Rubyflash's case, there was no data for temperature. Moritz had no data for mass. (5844 K is temperature.) S04 Scharnhorst had the mass entered twice. It's not neuzd's fault, just "Admiral Fuzzybottom" hardly working just for you.
└> last changed by Skinnymon on April 21, 2009 at 21:37
going nowhere fast...
written by Skinnymon on Apr 21, 2009 21:39
Change subject:

Neuzd said:
I should change the 0;0;0 to OUT OF RANGE, at least that would be correct. [EDIT: done. WESTOS will still display 0; 0; 0....gotta keep anomalies "coherent"]
So what should I do with thIS? [J/K neuzd!]
.
.


.
.

Hmm... just one little X coordinate from being a grid star. [Or is it not?]

And is "Y=-0" anything like +NAN L.Y.? Erm...Maybe I should rephrase that...

.
.





written by Cryoburner on Apr 22, 2009 02:10
Yeah, Moritz kind of skewed the average results a bit.

The average mass for S03s should be somewhere in the vicinity of 5 bms, but Xnet was reporting it to be over 88. : )
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../GOES Extended Network/ 123
40819, 15 queries, 0.106 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network