|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 10/02/07 09:45
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:14:57 +0100, SpaceGirl
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>> Oh Spacey, you have GOT to be completely the fuck out of yer head
>> today:
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com
>So?
>
>You really think your mom would visit a W3C site?
Well, yeah, actually. What better source is there for beginner and
advanced web design tutorials/guides?
>No. So her "vote"
>(hit" would not count. Just how many people are likely to go to these
>site who aren't involved in the industry in some way? What percentage of
>the 300,000,000 internet users there are actually go to this site?
Did you just miss the fuckin link, Spacey? I mean, okay, you've been
taking some serious dumbfuck pills here lately, but really, take
fuckin notes or something:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com
>>>>> 10% and rising.
>>>> Cite your source, Doofy.
>>> Cite yours. The W3CSchools site is not relevant.
>> Yeah, an Alexia ranking of SIX HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE...boy THAT'S not a
>You moron... Alexia is even worse! :D It only counts people who have the
>Alexia bar installed... which is practically nobody LOL.
You really are a dumbfuck.
"Alexa's data come from a large sample of several million Alexa
Toolbar users; however, this is not large enough to accurately
determine the rankings of sites with fewer than roughly 1,000 total
monthly visitors. Generally, Traffic Rankings of 100,000+ should be
regarded as not reliable because the amount of data we receive is not
statistically significant. Conversely, the more traffic a site
receives (the closer it gets to the number 1 position), the more
reliable its Traffic Ranking becomes."
Yeah, several million is "practically nobody".
Further, in your idiocy you didn't even realize you just contradicted
yer own argument. First you tried to claim that the W3School's stats
would be inaccurate because they represent only TECHNICAL USERS and
not idle dumbfucks like your mom (apparently), however Alexia's
toolbar is marketed primarily to those idle dumbfuck users and NOT to
highly technical users, most of which consider the toolbar to be a
spamish accessory.
So if the site gets such an incredibly high rating on Alexia, a site
that caters primarily to idle dumbfucks...durr, er, there goes yer
whole argument you fuckin retard.
>> relevant site. Oh hey, why don't we check YOUR Alexia rating!
>>
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.bitesizedjapan.com
>> Uh oh, you seem to be floating up there around FOUR MILLION. *nods*
>LOL Amazed it's even that good, seeing as it's not launched.
Pffft, don't make excuses. I don't even advertise Backwater, I act
like a fuckin bastard to pretty much everyone under the sun, half the
gawd damn Internet has every reason to hate my fuckin guts and I
*STILL* manage to bounce around in the 200 to 600 thousand range.
>>> I actually thing you are right, but it very much depends on your
>>> market.
>> No, it REALLY the fuck doesn't.
>Of course it does. Get stats from universities you're likely to see very
>high numbers for Linux and other off-beat OS's and browsers. Different
>markets are more/less likely to use different platforms, so will always
>sway your stats.
The problem here Spacey is that you're trying to compare apples to
circuit boards. Now not everybody in the world likes apples and there
are certainly going to be exclusive markets (like health nuts),
however with circuit boards...no. With that, there is no "market" as
far as consumers are concerned, it's a construct, it's hardware that
runs market specific products, but the circuit board in and of itself
doesn't have a particular market since it can be utilized in every
market. It's the same with javascript. My Care Bear site may be
targeted towards tweenage muppet fucks, nostalgic 20 somethings and
ankle biters, but that doesn't mean javascript is ONLY relevant to
those markets since javascript can be utilized for ANY site that can
cater to ANY market. Because of that fact nearly every market that
exists has more than a handful of sites that either rely or are nearly
wholly dependent upon javascript in order to function. That in turn
forces EVERY SINGLE LAST NICHE MARKET to enable javascript.
It is essentially the YouTube Principal. If you have a popular site,
or a site with exclusive content, etc, that is wholly dependant upon a
specific technology (in YouTube's case it's Flash), it will
automatically force a significant portion of the net.populous to
download and enable that technology. The more sites that exist the
greater the chance of that forced upgrading being exerted upon
Internet users, so the more people who go online and the more sites
that are created the more existing technologies like Flash and
javascript become solidified as de facto standards of browsing,
essential requirements. And that fact is VERY clearly seen on the
ever increasing W3School's stats.
....speaking of which, you stupid fuckin retards never did post any
counter stats that contradict the data on the W3School's site...not
that I would expect so much from you droolers. Fact is, you formulate
NONpinions and then run the fuck at the mouth with NOTHING to back
yourself up, where as whenever *I* say something it is *ALWAYS* based
upon some relevant, irrefutable, hard facts:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com
You claim the contrary...so I ask...what the fuck is your claim based
upon? Yeah, shit you pulled out of yer stupid ass, you dumbfuck.
>The kinds of people who visit W3C related sites are not average users.
And yet the "kinds of people" who download and use the Alexia toolbar
ARE "average users"...so, dum de dum, looks like you just contradicted
yer own idiotic argument. You uh...you didn't even realize it, did
you? LOL...how pathetic. I swear, the more you talk the more you
disappoint me.
>> Just in case reality hasn't penetrated yer thick fuckin skull yet,
>> here's that link, ONE MORE TIME:
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com
>So?
>
>http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.bbc.co.uk
>
>There are around 300 million web users in the world. I doubt even 10% of
>them visit Alexa (I don't know, happy to be given a real figure), and I
>bet not even 1% of them visit w3schools.com. So, you are basing your
>stats on a tiny fraction of the world audience.
You never took a stats class, did you? It shows. *nods*
>>> Cite your source. 90%? The worlds most popular sites (bbc.co.uk and
>>> google.com) both work without JS. While not all of their content is
>>> visible without JS, they don't "magically become beyond reach".
>> Even MY site will "work" without javascript
>So your site is not one of the 90% that you said will disappear if there
>was no JS. Good for you.
It won't "disappear", however much of the form, design and some of the
content/functionality won't be available to you. And that's the way
most sites are, including many of Google's sites. You can "see" them
without javascript, but you can't utilize those sites to their full
potential without the technology. It's sort of like a car with no
wheels can run...but it can't go anywhere.
>> (do note the lack of
>> capitals, amateur).
>Damn you got me. You better tell ECMA then, the people behind the
>standard (JS is an ECMA standard, like AS3):
>
>http://www.ecma.com
....you dumbfuck. *shakes head*
Look here kiddo, it's time for a history lesson. One day, back ought
in '95 there was a bloaty, pasty fat man by the name of Brendan Eich,
who developed a language called Mocha...which he then later called
LiveScript, which he then later called JavaScript.
Now, here's the trick, Stupid. Later, along came Microsoft who
developed THEIR OWN RENDITION of the language and they called it
JScript.
So that created conflicts because then there were essentially two
different languages, JavaScript and JScript.
In order to "fix" the situation, a THIRD PARTY, ECMA came along and
introduced a "standard" form of the language called ECMAscript.
Both JavaScript and JScript aim to be compatible with the ECMAscript
"standard", however both of them ARE NOT exactly ECMAscript.
So you see, Doorknob, people needed a way of describing all these
different forms as one, hence "javascript" (do note the lack of
capitals) was formulated BY THE DEVELOPERS as a means of talking about
and including ALL FORMS (JavaScript, JScript, ECMAscript, etc).
The problem is that at some point the whole "AJAX" fuckwit bandwagon
came along and you along with all the other n00b level college flunkie
retards started capitalizing the fuckin word out of stupidity, not
comprehending the history behind the word and why it SHOULDN'T be
capitalized (because if you do you're only referring to one
sub-language).
Essentially every time you say JavaScript instead of javascript you're
referring ONLY to the NETSCAPE implementation of the language.
....fuckin DUH!
>>> How often do people in cyber cafe's visit that site? Or school kids,
>>> or office workers, or people on library computers, or folks at home
>>> doing online shopping etc etc. The site is not in the least bit
>>> representative of general users - it only represents people who are
>>> likely to visit their site (and the other technical sites they gather
>>> stats from).
>> Here's reality!
>>
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com
>http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.bbc.co.uk
>
>The worlds 2nd busy web site... (and works without JS)
>
>http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com
>
>The worlds busiest site (and works without JS)
You don't get to utilize all of the potential functionality that those
sites/domains have to offer without javascript, you idiot fuck.
Again, a car without wheels will run, but you sure the fuck ain't
gonna be goin anywhere you retard.
>> Bitch slapping you the fuck across yer face since birth. *nods*
>Only in your wet dreams :)
Interesting how you edited/read that to infer that *I* was the one
bitch slapping you and not the reality metaphor.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|