|
|
Posted by Steve on 02/23/07 14:50
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:0gvst2plait3sg84r83m66u44e71v81sm5@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:22:20 -0600, "Steve" <no.one@example.com>
| wrote:
|
| >| So with the new indexing ability of my new Backwater site a question
| >| keeps coming up in my mind...is there a better way?
|
| >yes, there is. anyway other than the way you do it. you inevitably get it
| >wrong...pick your context.
|
| Oh boy, I think I've got another Hatter Addict in the making here...or
| are you already a Hatter Addict? It's getting hard to keep track,
| what with how many of them I have these days.
|
| >| On the Backwater site for example when you click on a nav button it's
| >| essentially performing a meta-refresh on the page but then adding on
| >| the appropriate GET variable to the URL.
| >|
| >| This is a bit annoying in that it winds up having to reload about 800K
| >| of data, which, even from the browser cache takes 3 to 5 seconds.
| >| Now, it is true that in that respect it winds up functioning like your
| >| average HTML/CSS/javascript based site...but part of wanting to use
| >| Flash (aside from the compatibility) is the increased speed in NOT
| >| having to needlessly reload anything from the cache.
|
| >this is web programming 101, dumbass.
|
| Well, no, actually it isn't. What I'm asking for is something that
| would essentially go against the very nature of the way it's supposed
| to operate and there might not even BE a way of doing it...and if
| there is it'd likely fall under "web malware 101" as it would
| certainly help that kind out.
i see that when you have difficulties, you blame the technology as the
shortcoming. that's a trend more closely resembling projection. 'technology'
and 'other' people get blamed a lot on your behalf.
| >as for 'compatibility', you don't seem
| >to conceive that not all browsers support flash...
|
| The only browser that doesn't support Flash is Lynx...which is what
| blind people use...and coincidentally it's only in use by like .00001%
| of the total net.populous...not that it really matters since the site
| has a plain text fall back version in the event that for some idiot
| reason the dumbfuck has got Flash disables or in the event that
| they're a blind user...or an Amish of the Internet user (a person who
| isn't blind who uses Lynx).
again, and for someone who wants to be 'in-touch' with technology, you've
just left out 64-bit os users. so, to use your site, one has to be a
sheeple...or they get no service. you are a walking contradiction, a
hypocracy.
| >much less javascript or
| >css.
|
| ...tell me, what the fuck decade are you trapped in, Sunshine? Yeesh,
| talk about the technologically stunted. Where the fuck has your
| stupid has been for the past 7 years?
wow! is english a second or third language for you? you are using 'stupid'
(adjective) as a subject (noun) and have it enclosed between to 'has'. 'how
long has your head has been up your ass?'
| >further, you never heed anyone's professional advice that you should be
| >accounting for this. but hell, you site is for you...no one else gives a
| >flying fuck.
|
| Well the quarter MILLION people going to my site on a monthly basis
| seem to disagree with your ASSumptions, you stupid jackass. Speaking
| of which, for some reason I'm real popular in Puerto Rico lately, my
| Alexia ratings show me at 15,280...which is like...woah... I figured
| they musta mentioned one of my sites on one of their television
| stations or something. I'm really worried that one of these days
| something like that is gonna happen in the US. One lil blurb about my
| sites on say Tech TV would be enough to hammer my server with enough
| traffic to knock it out of face of existence. If worse comes to worse
| I might wind up having to use adsense banners, especially if the
| current growth trend on Backwater continues.
i suppose 249K of them have been you accessing it during debug...which i'm
sure you do directly on your production server. ;^)
| >| So the question is...is there some way to make it so that when someone
| >| goes to bookmark the page it'll alter the bookmarking URL or is there
| >| some way of dynamically altering the URL while NOT actually reloading
| >| the page?
|
| >oh, i'd say mind-reading would be good...that, or load all your data in
your
| >crap-app...errr...i mean, flash-app and then the universe is in the
client
| >world.
|
| ...yup, I was right about you, a Hatter Addict. Free cl00, Kiddo,
| this ain't Star Trek and everyone can tell when you're babbling
| nonsense.
you can't comprehend english either. i don't care what you do to a url, the
server cannot, without mind-reading, know what you want without accessing
the server with that url. your choices then become, loading all the server
data onto the client for it to trudge through, or getting the appropriate
data from the server using the url. sorry your lack of reading skills force
you to not see sarcasm. you always seem to 'out' your failings in such
'c100'13ss responses. i suppose that's why i provoke you...it's amusing from
time to time.
| >if you've ever heard of *security*, you'd know that altering a url
| >cannot be a function that is reliably done client-side...even for a good
| >hacker.
|
| ...why the fuck would a hacker want to alter bookmark URLs you
| dribbling dumbfuck? Do you even know what hacking is? Don't answer
| that, it's rhetorical.
hmmm...why the fuck would *all* browsers suddenly (starting about 5 years
ago) pay close attention to limiting the ability to alter urls and bookmarks
in general? for one instance, oh unimaginative one, redirection. how about
multi-domain hacks (even with ssl on the parent). i could go on, but i'm
sure you don't have a clue as to what i mean or what the implications are.
run along and play now.
| >further, that altering a url does shit for you unless you access
| >what is on the other side of it.
|
| ...uh, hello, fucking retard, what part of GET VARIABLES did you not
| comprehend the first time I said it? It can alter the url and go to
| the appropriate section, it doesn't need to ACTUALLY go to the URL
| since it's technically ALREADY FUCKING THERE...yeesh...where the fuck
| did this n00b come from?
and the most dangerous hacking script in the world is completely harmless
until it is executed. hullo, change it as you will, it is meaningless until
you do something with it. 'technically' isn't 'reality' now is it. 'there'
is in your fucking client. if the data is not also 'there', then you have to
go somewhere else with your get variables. listen, now would be the time to
remove your head from your ass.
| >finally, you sure put a lot of faith in
| >people enabling javascript...because surely you don't plan on
manipulating
| >it on the server-side.
|
| http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
|
| Jan 2006 - 10% of users have javascript disabled
| Jul 2006 - 8% of users have javascript disabled
| Jan 2007 - 6% of users have javascript disabled
|
| Noticing a trend here, Retard? Eventually even the technologically
| retarded get forced to catch up with the rest of us. And again, the
| site has a plain text fall back version regardless, so your whining is
| very much a moot point.
|
| >it is painfully obvious that you failed to architect any of these factors
| >into your site...
|
| It is painfully obvious that you're Jesus molesting retarded for not
| having noticed that the site has a plain text fall back version built
| ESPECIALLY for retards like yourself. ^_^
lol. this is the amusement part. what a cad.
| >| So far the only viable solution I've come up with is to
| >| include my own little bookmarking button that when clicked would be
| >| able to set a dynamic bookmark...but I was kinda hoping for something
| >| a bit more...evolved.
|
| >i suppose one is limited to their own level of evolution in thought
| >capacity. hence, you are stuck with these problems.
|
| Hey uh, Retard...I couldn't help but notice that you weren't actually
| able to offer...well, ANYTHING in the way of viable solution to the
| problem I've presented...well unless you count retarding back HTML
| 2.0, but since the site already has a fall back version the needs of
| your kind has already been met and, well, quite frankly this topic
| really doesn't have anything to do with you at all, Dribbles.
well, since i don't ever intend to offer you help, you should just quit
posting your shit to alt.php - as i'm the only one here from whom you will
ever get a response. further, your posts are not questions...they are
bitching sessions about how you can't do something-or-other. for your
readers, it is NO big surprise to continually see that you can't do
something. we just wish you'd either admit that it's not the technology or
other people at fault...that, or just stfu. but both desires are wishful
thinking on our part(s).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|