Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 07/02/05 07:09

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 03:28:49 +0100, "Richard Cornford"
<Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> Tsch, tsch, tsch...boy you just went and stuck yer hand
>> right into a hornets nest, Richie...I'm afraid I'm not
>> going to make this very pleasant for you...I'd suggest
>> you run away in order to try and save face...but you
>> won't, you're not intelligent enough to know when to
>> quit. `, )

>Why do you think I would be worried?

....I wouldn't, yer a fuckin idiot, you can't even tell when you're
being verbally hammered into the proverbial wall 'o Usenet with your
own sheer fuckin stupidity.

>All you ever do is issue a stream
>of pseudo-patronising comments.

No, that's ALL YOU READ. My posts are actually a perfect mixture of
both verbal attacks as well as genuine facts, arguments and content.
The trick of it is though, if you're an RL, or some wayward Webbie
lost on Google groups then all you see is YOU'RE A STUPID FUCKING
MORON...where as if you're a netter, you see the insults, laugh along
with em, enjoy the verbal art and you get all the relevant content,
information, arguments, facts, etc... But you don't...even in this
whole paragraph the ONLY part that a DUMBASS like you comprehends is
YOU'RE A STUPID FUCKING MORON...that's it, that's all you get out of
it. ^_^

>> *looks at the image*
>>
>> ...was it that, Windows95 that you're using? Windows98?
>> D00d, I have no time to deal with luddites who choose to
>> use an OS that's nearly a decade out of date, seriously,
>> get the fuck outta here. *shakes head* Yeesh, like the
>> fuckin morons running around still using Netscape Navigator
>> for Hells sake.

>You mean you can't tell what OS I am using from looking at an image of
>IE 6 in a Windows "Classic" GUI? Oh yes that right, you cannot tell.

Uh oh, backpedal, LOOK OUT! Right, sure honey bunny, you're really
using XP but yer box is absolute shit so you degrade the OSs look to
match yer outdated shit box...what are you running some kind of an
e-machine? A Gateway maybe? D00d, did you get a Dell? *snicker*

>But it is the shortfall in your understanding of HTTP that produced the
>effect illustrated so the OS doesn't make much difference anyway.

....um, what the fuck does hyper text transfer protocol have to do
with...ANYTHING AT ALL that we've been talkin about? o_O

>>>A much better short-term plan would be to take some time
>>>out to learn the technologies you purport to be such an
>>>expert in.

>> No, see, I already did that, which is why I am an expert.

>No, you see I have read your code so I know you are a barely adequate
>amateur with more to learn than you can currently conceive of.

And yet, huh, it's better than your code....BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE
ANY. ^_^

>>>Because, lets face it, you would never have written the
>>>code that you posted at the head of this thread if you
>>>understood any of the technologies involved.

>> BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...ya see Junior,
>> this is the part where you just start runnin at the
>> fuckin mouth without anything to contribute. I mean
>> if you think my technique is flawed, well by Satan you
>> had best step it the fuck up and propose a better
>> way...oh yeah, that's right YOU CAN'T.

>Oh yes I can.

Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk...boy that's just ALL you ever do, innt?

>And along the way I can remove the javascript dependency
>(with at least acceptable results without client-side scripting
>support),

No ya can't!

screen_w = document.body.clientWidth;

Can't do that in PHP, Kiddo, sorry, try again.

....not that it really matters, what the fuck are you so hung on
JavaScript for? What did it piss in yer Cheerios one day or
something?

>get the HTTP caching working for the system instead of against
>it,

That's actually on the browsers end of things and I already fixed teh
problem. I mean, OOOooo...

starttime = new Date().getTime();

With: ?" + starttime + "

added onto the end of each image link.

Do you need me to go through it line by line so a DUMBASS like you can
comprehend?

See that first thing up there, that says "starttime" that's a
V..A..R..I..A..B..L..E.. Say it with me, .rotard, VARIABLE. And that
VARIABLE is being set to the current date and time. Then that
VARIABLE is being tacked onto the end of each file name, so that way
it'll never be able to rely on yer browsers cache cause the file names
will never match up.

WOAH, boy that was sure complicated, .rotard, I bet though if I bought
that .rotarded book you keep yammerin on about boy I would have been
able to like find it out like UBER fast, huh?

>eliminate the need to ever re-load the actual page,

What are you fucking stupid? If the whole site is made up of nothing
but images and you resize it HAS to recreate all the images...ie it's
essentially reloading everything...one way or another it HAS to reload
them...you fuckin MORON!

>make the re-loading of the images more efficient,

You might be able to get a partial speed increase by incorporating
everything into a single PHP file and then using a single base
function for each image...but that's more of a programming style
preference than anything.

Which is what seems to be your major issue. It's like your dumbass
was taught to program in just ONE way and so unless everything you see
is done EXACTLY the same as the way you learned it then you get all
flustered and upset...maybe you just need to read that book you posted
about though, I'm sure that'll help you! ^_^

>double the performance of the client-side code,

See above.

>make it truly cross-browser,

Technically there's no such thing. There are browsers out there that
your dumbass has never even heard of and you certainly aren't going to
be able to make it work perfectly on ALL of them. All my newer sites
are FireFox/Netscape/IE compatible (newest versions). And according
to my browser usage stats...that's all that really matters.

>and even remove the need
>for the server to flog its guts out and so allow the process to scale to
>a commercial level of web site usage.

....actually you really couldn't. I take back what I said earlier, if
you incorporated everything into a single PHP file you would actually
only be putting MORE STRAIN on the server as far as processing.
Basically my current form is setup to use only the very minimum amount
of PHP code needed in order to generate the images. The only way you
could get it to go any faster is if you want to start removing
functions, like no antialiasing or using resize instead of
resample...of course if you're going to do that you don't need to use
PHP at all.

>Apart form the questionable worth of creating a good implementation of a
>bad idea, correcting all of the manifestations of your ineptness in this
>single instance would do you no good in the long run.
>
>The reason is best illustrated by considering a single expression form
>your client-side code:-
>
><URL: http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/internals.js >
>(line 144)
>
>Which is:-
>
>eval(logot+logoc)
>
>Now a real expert at javascript looks at that expression and sees the
>AdditiveExpression forming a single argument to a built-in function
>call. They know the implications of the AdditiveExpression and they know
>the behaviour of the built in function being called. And as a result
>they would _never_ write this expression.

The horrible implications of additive expressions, my Gawd, it's
ADDITION!!!

AAAAAHHHHHH!!!

OMG MATH IS TEH HARD!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=off&q=%22don%27t+use+AdditiveExpressions%22
"don't use AdditiveExpressions"
zero hits

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=off&q=%22don%27t+use+additive+expressions%22
"don't use additive expressions"
zero hits

Apparently this programming crisis in only known in the world of
Richard Stupid.

>The amateur, programming by coincidence, writes this code without
>understanding what it does

....I'm pretty fuckin certain that it ADDS...hence the + sign...fuckin
numbnuts.

and the whole eval() part, I'm using that to fuck around with multiple
variables whilst assigning them to cut down on extraneous code. WOAH,
this programming thing is REALLY complicated!

>I can tell you why a (sane)

Pffft, who the fuck ever accused me of being sane...what you think
it's just a clever name?

>javascript programmer would never write that
>expression. But what benefit would that do you? You would just fall into
>the next trap of programming by coincidence. The only real solution
>would be for you to understand the language that you are trying to use,
>so you can make actual informed decisions about what you write. But that
>will take effort on your part rather than examples from me.

Have you noticed that you've just been runnin at the fuckin mouth for
like THREE PARAGRAPHS now? I mean, holy shit d00d, if there was
ACTUALLY something wrong with using teh eval() function like I am,
surely to Satan you would have gotten to telling us all what that
might actually be.

>OK. In your little world you can probably get away with telling people
>your are an expert when you are no such thing, but then it would be best
>to stay in your world in order to be convincing.

You know what's so great about your stupidity...*runs a search on
"don't use eval()"*...

"It's very slow compared to any other function, as it first has to
interpret what you are asking it, and then execute that function...
It also allows for many holes in your code. While this isn't at all
important in JavaScript, using eval in PHP or something on the server
side is the one of the worst practices imaginable..."

^_^

....what was that you were yammering on about...something about people
who don't know what the fuck they're coding in...obviously yer range
of knowledge doesn't extend much farther than PHP, eh kiddo?

*shudder*

....like I said, with as fuckin stupid as you are, you almost make this
too easy.

>> Coincidentally, a couple people...not in alt.html nor in
>> alt.php have actually suggested alternate methods, like
>> using GET variables rather than cookies...which is
>> peachy, I could do it that,

>Yes your could do that, indeed you should do that.

No, I really don't need to. See it's like that book is talking
about...you program by coincidence. So you basically just READ
something, like "don't use global variables"...but then you don't
actually stop to think WHY...and that's why you're a piss poor
programmer, Richie. You just look at the word "DON'T"...just like you
only read the phrase, "YOU'RE A FUCKIN IDIOT"...and then that's
it...that ALL you get out of it. Now maybe it's like short attention
span or not enough Ritalin...who knows. But the bottom line is that
people like you DON'T THINK. The way that I'm using global
variables...it's not a security risk even in the slightest. But you
wouldn't know that...because YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON! ^_^

>> although that wouldn't actually
>> do anything other than not make it generate an image for you...

>Is an image still an image if it is zero pixels square? (Zen?)

Well it's a lovely lil red X anyway, OMG J00 HACE HAXORED A RED X OUT
OF MY PHP!!1!

Seriously d00d...yer like 1337!

>There may be no implementations better than the poor effort you posted
>here, but that would just suggest that the competent have recognised a
>bad idea and not bothered to code it. Leaving you as just the individual
>who has pursued folly furthest.

And yet it works beautifully, Cupcake. Hell, even you're out of
excuses now.

>Blank screens

Yeah, the whole 1% of my visitors who have JavaScript disabled aren't
really concerning me much, .rotard.

>and images pixelised beyond recognition qualify as working
>perfectly for you?

Tsch, tsch, tsch...too bad yer ONLY argument barely lasted one post.

>> Satan forbid a spoon fed educated moron like you actually
>> puts some effort into your interest...of course, for a
>> puke like you, maybe it's just something you do to try
>> and make a living...in which case, I guess we all know
>> now why you're not very successful at it.
>> Tell me something,
>> Richie...do you even HAVE a website? *snicker*

>Having a web site; the limit of your horizon.

Actually it's the start.

>I am not a web designer I am a web developer,

Actually you're just a fuckin idiot whose working as hard as you can
to sell some guys book...what is he related to you or something?
*snicker*

>and I work for a software house.

A software house, huh? WOW!

>The spectrum of e-commerce web sites I have worked on includes a
>dozen or so UK financial services sites, with single transaction limits
>of 50,000 pounds sterling. A field where any small error may cost
>someone a fortune,

I'm sure they still keep hard copies on paper, Kiddo, most self
respecting institutions do...unless it's for some fly by night
operation.

>and the developer responsible their job. Where the
>responsibility of understanding enough not to be letting even the
>smallest error get into production is suitably rewarded.

And yet as fucking retarded as you are you think all programming
languages, both JavaScript and PHP are all exactly the same...you're
such a cute little "coincidence programmer"...aren't you? ^_^

>I have no choice but understand the technologies I use, no choice but
>code each expression I write with a precise comprehension of it actions
>and consequences

But you don't...all you see is the word "DON'T"...and then you blindly
follow it. Like my use of global variables...it's completely
secure...but you don't comprehend that...all you can comprehend is
that someone with more intelligence and understand than you told you
NOT to do it because YOU don't have enough sense to be able to tell
whether it actually will have negative consequences or not.
Essentially you code by in the playpen because you're not old enough
to know any better in the real world.

>and no alternative but to recognise an inept,
>bullshitting charlatan when I listen to one.

And yet I've produced a perfect working liquid website...the first
ever of its kind:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/index.html

But you see...there's something I have that someone like you will
NEVER have...vision...imagination...creativity...*shrugs*...

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Back to original message]