unforum

[NovacaineX]

I didn't mean to sound accusatory. I figured you got it from another site like one of the blogs or something. Very strange. Do you see the detailed one here?

http://www.ourcolony.net/images/gamem8ker/112798.jpg

[Allen_the_Hott]

So there are two different versions? Cause the link is definalty different from the one my friends have.

[NovacaineX]

When you log into your colonies team page does the link go to

http://www.ourcolony.net/images/gamem8ker/112798.jpg

?

I don't see how there could be two versions.. maybe it's a browser issue? saving it as a recompressed jpg terribly blurring the c and the i. What browser are you using?

[Allen_the_Hott]

Double Post(sorry)
No, when i click that link i get the blurry one.

EDIT:ok, here is the whole thing, i still get the same link as everyone else, but it links to the blurry picture, i dont think it is the browser because typing this link http://www.ourcolony.net/images/gamem8ker/112798.jpg?IctQual=100 gives me the clear image. Also i use MSN.

[NovacaineX]

Ok it's a browser issue then, That link is the clear one. You might have your browser set to compress jpg's more or something. Not sure why that would veen be an option, but who knows. What browser are you using?

EDIT:

Bingo. That extra part sets the image quality to 100%. For some reason it's defaulting to less than that ( looks to be about 50) It probably makes websites load faster that way.

[randompherret]

i think mine is a higher quality then his though, what does the "original" look like?

[Allen_the_Hott]

Dang, i thought i had found something....oh well.

[NovacaineX]

Haha ok before we go on a whole page about his, it was a browser issue, there is only one image. randompherret, yorus is the original. He is using MSN explorer, it is by defualt setting the image quality lower than the normal 100%.

[randompherret]

start stairing too much and they all look the same

[Allen_the_Hott]

Well how about the other thing about 11/27/98 being a date of importance?

[NovacaineX]

good suggestion, unfortunatly it's been tried. But feel free to look more if you want. Heres what we know about the date.

Dreamcast Launch in Japan.
25 year anniversary of aaci

Thats all i can think of.

If you'd like a recap i posted a list of all the clues so far a few pages back.

[NobleKain]

Allen's just pulling your leg everyone. Look, a variable sent over the URL has no bearing on the image. Why? Because the page you go to for the image IS the image, not a web page CONTAINING the image. Therefore a URL variable will never get used because a JPG doesn't compile code. Perhaps a GIF could potentially do so... gif's can theoretically do a lot of things they weren't intended for... that's why gif images CAN be a security risk.

But a JPG has no compiling functionality. The only reason you STILL get the image when you use Allen's link is because the browser doesn't include anything after the "?" as part of the url, and it can just ignore the variable because it never gets used on the other end. Try it with ANY of your favorite sites... you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, Allen... you obviously altered that picture to cause us to get excited over nothing. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't.

For those others who also believe they have Allen's version, check again. What he is talking about is not the BIG AACI, but his altered "aaci.org" On his it is aaic.org.

As for the browser setting, it wouldn't switch letters even if you DID display low quality... and the rest of the image would ALSO be low quality which in Allen's image is not.

[NovacaineX]

I don't want to start an argument or anything but many "internet accellerators" applications used by Dialup ISP's only load compressed images, this image is so badly compressed it could easily be blurring the c and i together to make it look the other way.

[Allen_the_Hott]

I'd appreciate it if people would read the post and realize that it was nothing more than a browser issue before they go badgering the good name of Allen_the_Hott.

[NobleKain]

Fair enough...

However, like I said, the browser would decay the quality of the entire image, not just that portion. Also, as I said before, the URL variable will have not affect the image at all...

I'm just saying there are inconsistencies that haven't been explained.

Anyway, I'll drop it. The picture is meaningless we've established, which is the most important fact.