So you pre-ordered Assassin’s Creed: Unity. You poor bastard! Wasn’t it a pain in the butt to not be able to play and enjoy the game until at least December 16th, 2014? Who can afford to sit and wait for 40GB of download patch from a disc that only held 17GB to begin with?

They gave us a “free” downloadable content pack in Dead Kings to make up for the debacle, but when the DLC is just as buggy as the original game, who cares, right?

You probably won’t get 100%. I mean, at least, not as far as Xbox Live or PSN are concerned. The “Defender of Franciade” Achievement won’t pop (Trophies, if you’re on the PS4) for completing the “Suger’s Legacy” quest, even after you get the damn sword out of the wall. But, at least, with a little weirdness, you can actually equip the sword and use it … And it’s pretty damn cool!

First, go up to any merchant and go to Gear Loadout. Select a Rifle — any rifle, but not a Guillotine Gun. Next, to go Pistols, and select your favorite — even if it’s already equipped. Now, go One-Handed Weapons … and you’ll notice that kickass sword — The Eagle of Suger — is already selected, so just back out…

Ya know, the investment in this game has been a real dog. It’s sad that Ubisoft doesn’t have a support department that can tell you to do anything more than, “Start over,” or “Delete your install and re-install,” but that’s pretty much what’s going to happen until the Developers actually start seeing support metrics. And, from a corporate perspective, they probably won’t, the way things are structured.

But even if they did, they still might not be able to do basic math…

It’s a common fact that Roaches like dark places and run from the light, so I’m unsure if this means that there’s light in her underwear, or if she’s pretty sure her ass will never the light of day. Regardless… The last thing anyone wants to see when “unwrapping a present” is — bugs. *shudder!*

Dude doesn’t even FLINCH!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb85hNDQaAg

     Firefox still sucks.  I don’t care what everyone else in the world thinks, and I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but it’s the truth.  While they bitch about “standards” all the time, the fact is, 95% of what Firefox calls “a standard” isn’t even ratified yet.  When developers can’t tell a “Standard” from a “Request For Comment,” all sorts of malady ensues.
     It’s also disingenuous on the part of Web Developers to say, “It won’t render right in IE because IE sucks!” when the fact is, any Web Developer worth their salt would make an attempt to make a page render right in the predominant browser and its inferior counterpart.  Yet, for some reason, the call is to “blame Microsoft” every time a Developer makes a stupid mistake or doesn’t know what the Hell they’re doing…

     There’s also this ridiculous assertion that Firefox is inherently bullet-proof as far as being hackable.  The case is that IE is the predominant browser, so it makes sense to use it as the target for widespread attacks.  Firefox is an even more broken mess from a Security standpoint, and the veracity of its issues span across multiple platforms, despite claims otherwise.

     A nice little case in point of “shitty code” in Firefox is this attack vector I found two years ago and apparently still isn’t fixed…

     Get out your favorite PHP editor, and send an image in a stream… but in the header, use these two lines instead of something normal:

echo "Content-type: image/jpg";
echo "Content-length: 0";

     Now, with every other user-agent in the world, this won’t work for two very important reasons:

1. “image/jpg” is not a valid content-type.  “image/jpeg” is.
2. A connection-length of zero bytes tells the user-agent not to receive any data.

     Firefox, on the other hand, will go ahead and render the invalid content-type, zero-byte image at whatever size the Server streams to it, proving that it doesn’t care what’s actually being received from a possibly malicious host.

     Can you say, “Exploitable,” boys and girls?

     I knew you could…

     From what I’ve seen, this is the only page on the Internet that actually answers this rather popular question, and it’s out there on the ‘net about a million times…

     “How do I get my screensaver to take up the full screen on the A920?”

     If you have a miniSD card with a converter, you can easily size your background image to the perfect resolution of 176×220 (the screen’s natural resolution) on your computer, pop the card in the phone, select the image, assign it as a screensaver and that should make ’em full screen, right?
     Oh, hell no.  It’s much more convoluted.  You’ll end up with white bars at the top and bottom of the screen, and the vertical res cropped, thus destroying your picture and making your phone’s desktop look like total crap.

     The fix is easy, although convoluted.

     Hit the “Camera” button, then hit “7” for “Settings & Info.”  Select “3” for “View Mode” and set it to “Portrait.”  The phone will probably power off at that point, but when it comes back up, the white menu bars at the top and bottom are gone.

     I have no idea why the hell they’d drop it under Camera Settings…

     And, the fact that it crops photos in landscape mode when the vertical size is bloody well larger that the horizontal size is beyond me.

     And, why they insist on calling a background image a screen saver is totally messed up…

     It’s no friggin’ wonder everyone keeps calling their XP background a “screen saver” these days.  *shakes head*

     Quirky, at best.  And for sure, it should be filed under “annoying stuff to piss people off.”