When you close a window, you close the view and prevent the ability to see that _content_.Wrong.
The window contains _content_ which is to be viewed. Incorrect again: A window is a GUI element and is defined as a new view.Agreed. Instead of saying 'full content', the user should have said full window or window in it's entirety. Given the above, the entire contents of window is not defined only by what is currently visible to the user, but what is not visible as well.īottom line: The hint's description is misleading.
Anything that is outside the window - buttons, text, etc., is not part of the contents of a window, but belongs to the window itself. When you close a window, you close the view and prevent the ability to see that _content_.Ĭontent in this case is defined as all objects - text, images, frames, etc. Look.Ī window is a GUI element and is defined as a new view. Comparing a window to a folder is just flat out wrong. īut it's even better than that: Even if the window is bigger (wider or taller) than the actual screen, the full content (including the stuff which is outside) is grabbed. What you fail to read is the fact the hint also claimed that it will capture the full content (including the stuff which is outside). We are in agreement that the hint claimed that one could "capture windows which are larger than the screen. That and some sort of black magic (or, as researchers renamed it in the 20th century, "mind control".I believe you are the one that is incorrect. However, it does provide more ammunition for any hardliner "skeptics" who do summarily dismiss any claims of this type, which I have to wonder isn't a very large motivating factor to these frauds. Even if the story behind this collection is false, it doesn't necessarily debunk the creatures themselves and even if some or all of the creatures are manufactured art pieces, it doesn't debunk the existence (or prior existence) of other strange animals. Just basing my judgment on what I think animals "should" look like would make me doubt the existence of many of these entities, yet they still exist.Īs with most things, we should be cautious to make sweeping generalizations ( is that a sweeping generalization itself.?). Just look through this collection of weird undersea creatures, many have only been discovered in recent years. The world has (and had) many creatures that are seemingly unbelievable. I've never actually seen the skeleton of a fairy before, so I have no frame of reference for comparison. The newspaper which I thought looked like an "obvious fake" was informed by my familiarity newspapers in general. Though I've expressed my healthy skepticism on this collection, I'm not sure we can really derive anything from the pictures alone. Regardless, humans have enjoyed believing in fictitious deities and ideologies since the dawn of civilization, and as an avid obsessive of HP, I’d much prefer to worship the Great Old Ones than any current popular religion!
Lovecraft eventually spoke out about his work being fiction, many of his gods were modified from other writers work (Shub Niggurath is often credited to Lord Dunsany for his creation “Sheol Nugganoth”). I think some of my work is used for role play, thats as near as it gets to “using” my work. I often don’t hear back when in explain that they are synthetic! I’m yet to be contacted by a cultist looking for offerings to the elder gods. Quite a few times, often to complain that I am cruel for resigning innocent creatures to specimens jars and display cabinets. Do you know of any collectors actually trying to use any of your work (vampire hunting kits, etc)? Have you ever been contacted by anyone who thought your work was real? Lovecraft didn’t just make up his stories and that things like the Great Old Ones and the Necronomicon are real, even though Lovecraft insisted that he was an atheist.