|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 07/02/05 15:51
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 09:32:49 +0100, "Richard Cornford"
<Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> ...um, what the fuck does hyper text transfer protocol have
>> to do with...ANYTHING AT ALL that we've been talkin about?
>If my browser didn't cache that image (and it didn't) then who did,
....why do you keep referring to inanimate objects like they're people?
....and why did you just contradict yourself?
....and why are you blathering on about HTTP headers when in that other
post you were yammering on about how you hated my date stamp
method...I mean, DO YOU know how HTTP headers work?
>>>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.
>Ah, but I know how to do the basic prevention with scalable CSS so I
>don't need scripts anywhere for the fall-back for the javascript
>disabled/incapable.
....you fuckin idiot...scalable CSS...oh yeah, brilliant that:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/shapes2.html
Gotta love those jagged edges!
Yeesh, do you even KNOW what this fuckin thread is about? I mean, has
it occurred to idiot you AT ALL why the JavaScript and PHP is
necessary?
>> ...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?
>So I think showing a blank screen to a web site visitor when it is
>totally avoidable doesn't reflect well on the competence of the site's
>author.
Well I'll tell you what, Kitten, you lose ALL the sleep you want over
that ONE PERCENT whose got JavaScript disabled, me, I'm gonna cut
fate, move on and do it the way *I* want to do it. *I* set the
standard...not some fuckin idiot who went screwing around with their
browsers settings cause they were feeling especially retarded.
And again MORON, you miss the entire fuckin point of the whole gawd
damn design. Here it is again, just for the benefit of your idiocy:
JavaScript - document.body.clientWidth
PHP - imagecopyresampled()
FIGURE IT OUT, ya fuckin retard!
Free cl00, without those things, THE WHOLE CONCEPT DOESN'T WORK. And
if that concept fucks over 1% of the net populous who have disabled
JavaScript for no coherent reason whatsoever...hey...progress steps
right on over the luddites, kiddo, hate to be the one to give you the
hard smack of reality, but that's the way things work.
>But I have other reasons for wanting that non-blank screen.
Yeah your obsession with search engines, how could we forget.
>>>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.
>Do you really think that fixed the problem? All you really did was move
>the problem somewhere else.
No it really did fix the problem actually. Granted I've since decided
to use the client width instead of the a date/time stamp, however
doing so has little to no real affect on anything. Maybe if I wasn't
using a single page design with dynamic content there would have been
a real need, but otherwise I changed it just to be perfectionistic.
>> I mean, OOOooo...
>>
>> starttime = new Date().getTime();
>>
>> With: ?" + starttime + "
>>
>> added onto the end of each image link.
>And there I was expecting you to use the HTTP headers to influence
>caching behaviour, like anyone who knows what they are doing. But then
>you don't do you? So it is a javascript hack for you.
A JavaScript hack, eh? *snicker* Actually doing what I did with
JavaScript is not much different from modifying HTTP headers except
you have more control in that you can precisely cache individual
elements. With HTTP headers it's pretty much all or nothing. Again
though, you show off your incredible LACK of knowledge in JavaScript.
>> See that first thing up there, that says "starttime"
>> that's a V..A..R..I..A..B..L..E..
>It is a named property of the global object. The distinction may be
>subtle but variables are created from variable declarations during
>"Variable Instantiation" (the name is no coincidence) when program flow
>first enters an execution context. While this named property of the
>global object is created at the point of the assignment of a value to
>it. And, of course, a variable may be local or global, while a named
>property of the global object can only be global.
....wow, yer like a gawd damn Jesus killing encyclopedia of
bullshit...too bad you lack imagination and creativity, really at this
point you're about as useful as a reference manual.
>A competent programmer would use a local variable in this context and
>that certainly would be a variable, but your code is devoid of local
>variables so not in this case.
Actually starttime would need to be a global variable sunshine, since
its going to be used no matter what and not by any specific function.
Yeesh, yer so fuckin stupid you don't even know what yer rambling
about. It's like, you can read...but man oh man you sure can't seem
to comprehend any of it. That's a trait that's quite common though
with those who lack imagination and creativity. You can parrot
information...but you can't do anything more than that.
>> Say it with me, .rotard, VARIABLE.
>Named property of the global object.
>> And that VARIABLE
>Named property of the global object.
Oh I just love it when you start arguing semantics, Richie baby, you
sure think it makes you look smart, huh? ^_^
>> is being set to the current date and time.
>The millisecond value of the elapsed time since the beginning of January
>the first 1970 UTC, with an accuracy dependent on the "tick" value of
>the OS in use (up to +/-56 milliseconds), as reported by the client
>computer. (so rarely the real current value).
Thank you, Cap'n Parrot, anything else you'd like to parrot for us?
>> is being tacked onto the end of each file name,
>Concatenated to a siring representation of the file's relative URL.
Like I said, tacked onto the end of each file name...
Oh hey, look, it's my impression of Richie:
*snooty British badger up my ass tone of voice*
'Actually its a query appended to a Uniform Resource Locator as
described in RFC 1738.'
>> so that way it'll never be able to rely on yer
>> browsers cache cause the file names will never match up.
>Yes (assuming consecutive requests do not happen within a period shorter
>than the precision of the time value), every request will have to be
>satisfied by the site's server(s).
I like how you agree but then trail off into some long drawn out
fuckin rant like it somehow makes you look like any less of a dumbass.
I was right, you were verbose. And seriously Richie, conscious
dullness has little right to be prolix.
>A very bad idea under the circumstances.
Weren't you the doofy screwball who was supporting the idea of HTTP
headers? How is that any different, ya fuckin idiot!
>But it doesn't solve the problem with intervening caches because two
>individuals accessing the site at approximately the same time might
>still send identical URLs, and the second get images scaled for the
>first.
....right...and by some magic coincidence they would both be accessing
it at exactly the same millisecond on exactly the same ISP with
different resolutions? Highly doubtful, Cupcake. I think you'd have
a better chance of standing out on a sunny day and getting struck by
lighting twice in a row.
>> WOAH, boy that was sure complicated, .rotard,
>Slightly more complex that your simplistic understanding has it.
You make things complicated when they don't need to be...which btw
leads to mistakes, errors, fuckups, etc. It is interesting to see you
switch gears though to try and save face. At first you were claiming
that I had no understanding at all of what I was doing and now you're
trying to overcompensate by repeating everything I'm saying but in the
most technobabbled jargon filled way possible. You're not saying
anything different, you're just saying it in a way that breeds
mistakes.
It's like if I say:
"Go to the store and buy some milk."
And you say:
"Travel to the place at which things are available for purchase and
perform a transaction of monetary basis in order to acquire a
container of bovine produced lactose."
Are you a lawyer or a programmer? Figure it out, Junior.
>> 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?
>No, that is a general book about programming practice. To understand
>javascript you would have to go to the specification for the language
>(ECMA 262).
>
>Of course the whole "variable" business is irrelevant as there is no
>good reason not to concatenate the type-converted result of the Date
>object's method call directly to the URL string:-
>
> ?" + (new Date()).getTime() + "
>
>- and save the client a bit of pointless work, and the global namespace
>another potentially clashing property name.
Except for the fact that there are 16 separate images being called
about 35 different times and using:
?" + (new Date()).getTime() + "
on each one is quite a bit more redundant than using:
?" + starttime + "
31 characters vs 19...and just imagine if I had a thousand of them.
I do find your aversion to variables amusing, I'd like to see Reaper
jump in and repost some of the edits she did of my code, that'd
probably send you frothing at the mouth in frustration. ^_^
>>>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!
>It might have to re-load the images to display properly re-scaled images
>but it doesn't have to re-load, re-parse, re-error-correct and re-render
>the pseudo-XHTML tag soup and it doesn't have to re-load, re-interpret
>and re-initialise the script.
All of that is pretty much instantaneous compared to the image
content, Junior. You're arguing about a drop in the bucket.
>>>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.
>That is an irrelevant nonsense. I was observing that your original code
>has an onresize handler that re-loads the page whenever a resize event
>happens. Which mans much more re-loading than is necessary.
That is irrelevant nonsense, who in their right mind would randomly
resize the page every 3 seconds?
>With the
>right CSS defined it should be entirely satisfactory to only try to
>re-load the images when the user stops re-sizing the browser.
Actually there's an even simpler method using JavaScript that I could
use...I probably will too. You uh...you do know that, that's just a
BETA site, right? He, he, he...it won't be complete for quite some
time. And there's no sense in rewriting the code over and over again
when I haven't even completely decided on everything that's going to
go in it.
>> 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! ^_^
>We are actually talking about the difference between knowing what the
>code you wire will do, and just thinking that you know what it will do.
Well I hate to break it to ya, Cupcake, but code isn't that black and
white. Granted at it's core it's one's and zero's...but when you're
dealing with millions of them, well that certainly introduces a bit of
variability. Programming is NOT an exact science, there IS NO WAY of
knowing precisely how something will function in all circumstances and
to even claim something as fucking retarded as that just makes you
look like that much more of an idiot. If your logic was correct we
wouldn't have bug fixes, we wouldn't have security holes, there would
be no viruses, no firmware updates, no patches, etc, etc, etc. Yer
livin in fantasy land, Kiddo, wake the fuck up and try and remember
what reality you're in!
>>>make it truly cross-browser,
>>
>> Technically there's no such thing.
>It may be unknown to you, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Look, Stupid, the only way you're going to make something "truly"
cross browser compatible is if you do everything in like HTML v2 and
even then it's not gonna be compatible with older beta browsers during
the original formulation of HTTP and it certainly doesn't mean that
all future browsers will be backwards compatible with the HTML v2
standards. There is NO WAY of making something "truly" cross browser
compatible. That's like saying that you're going to count all the way
up to infinity...no yer not...CAUSE IT INFINITY. o_O
Oh but hey, since you claim you can produce truly cross browser
compatible code...give us an example...and it has it work in all these
browsers:
1x
Air Mosaic Demo
AllWorld Explorer
Amaya
Arachne
ArcWeb
Ariadna
AtomNet
AWeb
Beonex
Bobby
Bohemian Net Browser
BrownIE
Browse2000
CAB
Cello
Charlie
ChiBrow
Chimera
Contiki
Custom Browser
Cyberdog
CyberGate
Cyber Passage
DigiCams
DOSLynx
DR-WebSpyder
ELinks
Emacs-W3
Emissary
FreeWebBrowser
Galahad
goAnywhere!
Grail
GrassHopper MDI Explorer
HandWeb
HexaBit Junior
Home Page Reader
HotJava
I-comm
I-O-D-4 - The Web Stalker
I-View
iBrowse
iCab
Internet Explorer
Internet Plus
Internet WorkHorse
KidNet Explorer
KidSafe Explorer
LIS Web Browser
Links
Lynx
MacLynx
MacWeb
MacWWW (Samba)
MathBrowser
Microviet First Explorer
Minuet
Mosaic
Mozilla, incl. Firefox
Multilingual Mosaic
MultiWeb Viewer
MyBrowser
Navigator
NCompass
NeoPlanet
Net-Tamer
NetCaptor
NetCruiser
NetForKids
Net M@anager
Netomat
NetPositive
NetSentry
NetShark
NetShift
Nuthin' But Net
Off By One
OmniWeb
Opera
PowerBrowser
ProStream Browser
pwWebSpeak Plus
Pythia
QuickScape
Safari
Santa's Browser
SimulBrowse
SiteKiosk
SlipKnot
Softerm Plus
SuperHighway Browser
Surfin' Annette
SurfMonkey
Talking Browser
Talva Document Explorer
Tango Multilingual
The Other Browser-Emailer
UdiWWW
Video On Line Browser
Voyager
WannaBe
Web-O-Matic Digital Browser
Web SurfACE
Web-Talkit
WebExplorer
WebProwler
WebRacer
Websurfer
WebTV Viewer
WebView
WebWhacker
Wildcat Navigator
WinWEB
WorldWideWeb (Nexus)
^_^
Get crackin, Sunshine, show us all yer uber truly cross browser
compatible code!
>> 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.
>I don't need to have heard of them. All I need to do is provide an
>acceptable result on javascript disabled/incapable browsers, and know
>how to feature detect the facilities that any script would need in order
>to act. Then I can cleanly degrade to the same presentation as the
>javascript impaired browsers would get when those facilities are not
>available. Thus I can cover 100% of browsers, scriptable or not, and
>regardless of the client-side facilities they provide.
Okay now tell me how you're going to do that with a Flash animation.
Sure you could describe it with text, but uh...that's not the same
content kiddo. You just admitted that you can't make a truly cross
browser compatible site, the best you can do is offer shit
alternatives to the real deal in the event that the user is browsing
with some piece of shit.
>> All my newer sites are FireFox/Netscape/IE compatible
>> (newest versions). And according to my browser
>> usage stats...that's all that really matters.
>The usual "chicken and the egg" applies to that argument.
Yes, no doubt my sites are single handedly forcing everyone into using
only FireFox/Netscape and IE...oh what a dastardly fiend I am! Why I
could have gotten away with it too if weren't for you meddling kids
and your dog!
No longer will I be able to force text only browser into submission,
TEXT RULES!!! Pictures, animation, video, sound, etc, etc...nothing
more than a fad! It's the chicken and the egg! Black and white TV is
gonna make a comeback, you'll see!
*snicker*
>>>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.
>Actually I really could. Indeed with the cost of hard disks falling as
>their size rockets there is no way I would even consider designing a
>system that attempted to re-scale images live for every single request.
I think you're confusing processing power and memory with hard drive
space, Kiddo. Really nothing would be written to the drive at
all...well unless maybe you had a serious memory deficiency on yer
system.
>> 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.
>Yes, I told you it was a nonsense.
....um, you were the one who originally proposed it, you fuckin MORON!
>> Basically my current form is setup to use only the very
>> minimum amount of PHP code needed in order to generate
>> the images.
>The amount of PHP code needed to invoke the re-scaling of an image
>doesn't really affect the amount of code (machine code) that needs to be
>executed in order to re-scale an image.
....actually, yes, it does. Simply going from this (most amount of
machine code):
:$image_p = imagecreatetruecolor($new_w, $new_h);
:imageAntiAlias($image_p,true);
:$image = imagecreatefrompng($filename);
:imagecopyresampled($image_p, $image, 0, 0, 0, 0, $new_w, $new_h, $width, $height);
to this:
:$image_p = imagecreatetruecolor($new_w, $new_h);
:$image = imagecreatefrompng($filename);
:imagecopyresampled($image_p, $image, 0, 0, 0, 0, $new_w, $new_h, $width, $height);
to this (least amount of machine code):
:$image_p = imagecreate($new_w, $new_h);
:$image = imagecreatefrompng($filename);
:imagepalettecopy($image_p, $image);
:$tpcolor = imagecolorallocate($image_p, 255, 255, 255);
:imagefilledrectangle($image_p, 0, 0, $new_w, $new_h, $tpcolor);
:imagecopyresampled($image_p, $image, 0, 0, 0, 0, $new_w, $new_h, $width, $height);
:imagecolortransparent($image_p, $tpcolor);
would have incredible significance as to the amount of machine code
used to resize the images...and actually stupid, we're talking about
RESAMPLING not resizing. Apparently when it comes to graphics yer a
gawd damn fuckin amateur. If all I wanted to do was RESIZE the images
I wouldn't even be using PHP.
>> 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.
>If you are willing to put up with a badly re-scaled image then you can
>let the browser do that for you.
This is grossly unacceptable:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/shapes2.html
>The problem isn't the work involved in
>scaling an image, but rather the number of times you would end up doing
>the same re-scaling operation, with the same outcome.
Which I've already solved:
<filename> ?" + screen_w + "
Congratulations, find something else to bitch about already.
>>>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!!!
>Or concatenation, depending on the type of the operands.
eval(logot+logoc)
Hrmmm...nope, I don't see any dollar signs, kiddo, pretty sure that
means they're INTEGERS...say it with me INTEGERS.
>It isn't possible to avoid AdditiveExpressions in javascript.
....then what the fuck are you bitchin about it for? Are ya stupid
Richie, is that it? Got hammered the fuck into the wall one too many
times?
>The factor
>that needs to be considered is the type of the operands, and so whether
>the result of the expression is a number or a string. In your case the
>operands have to both be numbers so the operation is addition and the
>result is a number. If either of the operands were a string then the
>outcome of the statement in which expression features would be off by
>multiple orders of magnitude.
....well, actually it's adding two integers and then converting them
into a string...kinda necessary since last I checked valid CSS
required the lil "px" on the end of all the size and location
values...which is the whole reason I'm using the eval() function in
the first place...and again I point that you're bitching about
something that doesn't even fucking matter.
>> Apparently this programming crisis in only known in the
>> world of Richard Stupid.
>Did I say that an AdditiveExpression would not feature in the expression
>a competent javascript programmer would write?
Well, yes, as a matter of fact you did. You said, "And as a result
they would _never_ write this expression"...
Uh oh, look out, backpedal!
>>>The amateur, programming by coincidence, writes this code
>>> without understanding what it does
>> ...I'm pretty fuckin certain that it ADDS...
>Or concatenates.
No I'm pretty sure it's only ADDING in this particular case.
>> 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.
>OK, this was the point of asking you the question. You are using the
>eval function to "fuck around with multiple variables whilst assigning
>them to cut down on extraneous code" are you? Obviously an involved
>technical process known only to the real "experts" in javascript
>programming :)
Well last I checked I was the one with the only functioning perfect
liquid website, so yeah, I guess that does make the expert until
someone comes along and outmatches my design...boy we might be waitin
a while though, huh kiddo? You better hope Mimic can jump in and save
yer failing argument cause at this point it seems he's the only one
with enough skill to even attempt it.
>We have established that the + operator will be doing addition in this
>context, and that the result of the AdditiveExpression will be a number.
Thank you, Cap'n Obvious, where would the net be without you!
>You don't know what the eval function does with a numeric argument, do
>you? Lets see what the language specification has to say about the eval
>function's behaviour under the circumstances:-
>
><quote cite="ECMA 262, 3rd edition: Section 15.1.2.1">
>|
>| 15.1.2.1 eval (x)
>|
>| When the eval function is called with one argument x,
>| the following steps are taken:
>|
>| 1. If x is not a string value, return x.
> ...
></quote>
>
>That's right, it does nothing, NOTHING. Nada, zip, zero, nothing;
Well for doing nothing you seem awfully flustered over it.
>the argument is returned unaltered.
Well of course it is you fuckin doorknob there's only one variable in
their example. I mean if I type out eval(value); it's not gonna do
anything. But if I throw in some more variables and a few more
operands hey we can really start some shit!
eval(you+are*a-fucking/idiot);
There ya go, how do ya like that?
>That is why the competent javascript programmer would not ever write
>that expression.
No shit, why would you write an expression that doesn't evaluate
anything but one variable. What are you retarded or do you just not
comprehend what you're reading?
>"Cut down on extraneous code"? You have turned (logot+logoc) into
>eval(logot+logoc) in order to "cut down on extraneous code"?
Try it without the eval, stupid, see what happens. Oh hey, it fucks
the whole site, fancy that! Must be that UBER programming sixth sense
of yours, huh?
Yeesh, if you weren't such a fuckin MORON you'd be able to see that
quite plainly simply by noticing the + "px"; tacked onto the end of
the thing, ya fuckin doorknob!
Obviously to anyone who isn't STUPID I'm using eval to perform math on
integers that are going to be read as a string once it's finished
calculating them.
>> WOAH, this programming thing is REALLY complicated!
>It certainly took me a while to get to grips with it. How long it is
>going to take you remains to be seen.
Boy it seems I'm already light years ahead of you kiddo, you couldn't
even figure out why I was using eval() fer fuck sake!
>> obviously yer range of knowledge doesn't extend
>> much farther than PHP, eh kiddo?
>While your knowledge doesn't extend as far as javascript?
Apparently quite a bit farther than yours. And since I'm feeling
generous, I'll even share:
:<?php
:
:$filename = 'file.png';
:list($width, $height) = getimagesize($filename);
:
:$new_w = ;
:$new_h = ;
:
:$image_p = imagecreatetruecolor($new_w, $new_h);
:imageAntiAlias($image_p,true);
:imagealphablending($image_p, false);
:imagesavealpha($image_p,true);
:$transparent = imagecolorallocatealpha($image_p, 0, 0, 0, 127);
:imagefilledrectangle($image_p, 0, 0, $new_w, $new_h, $transparent);
:$image = imagecreatefrompng($filename);
:imagecopyresampled($image_p, $image, 0, 0, 0, 0, $new_w, $new_h, $width, $height);
:
:header("Content-type: image/png");
:imagePNG($image_p);
:imagedestroy($image_p);
:
:?>
Use that one for true color PNG files with alpha transparencies.
:<?php
:
:$filename = 'file.png';
:list($width, $height) = getimagesize($filename);
:
:$new_w = ;
:$new_h = ;
:
:$image_p = imagecreate($new_w, $new_h);
:$image = imagecreatefrompng($filename);
:
:imagepalettecopy($image_p, $image);
:$tpcolor = imagecolorallocate($image_p, 255, 255, 255);
:imagefilledrectangle($image_p, 0, 0, $new_w, $new_h, $tpcolor);
:imagecopyresampled($image_p, $image, 0, 0, 0, 0, $new_w, $new_h, $width, $height);
:imagecolortransparent($image_p, $tpcolor);
:
:header("Content-type: image/png");
:imagepng($image_p);
:imagedestroy($image_p);
:
:?>
Use that one for palette based PNG files with single color
transparencies.
See that's the big difference between you and me, Richie...I post
code...you don't. ^_^
>>>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!
>The red X is for when images are disabled or the server doesn't send
>anything or sends an error.
OMG REALLY?! Like, no way, are you serious?
>The zero pixel image gets sent. But you are
>thinking of this as a security issue. It isn't, it is a predictable
>failure scenario provoked by security software.
You know I have absolutely no sympathy for people who whack themselves
in the head with a ball pene hammer...none at all.
>The failure is that
>numerous zero pixel images look like a blank screen, or a screen covered
>with red Xs, or a screen of malformed image file notifications. None of
>which are an acceptable outcome and all of which are completely
>avoidable,
You're absolutely right, they are COMPLETELY avoidable...stupid user X
simply needs to uninstall whatever shit "security software" he's
running and BOOM, completely avoidable!
>> And yet it works beautifully, Cupcake.
>Only with the sort of definitions of "works" and "beautifully" that you
>would expect form someone with such a strange perception of doing
>nothing.
Cupcake I think you need to start worrying about the BIGGER picture, I
mean you're all losing sleep about the 1% of idiots who disable
JavaScript and so forth, but have you even considered all the hundreds
of millions of poor starving children in third world countries? I
mean, they don't even HAVE the Internet! My site doesn't work AT ALL
for them...and honestly, it's COMPLETELY avoidable, all I have to do
is not make a website AT ALL and that way it won't be a problem!
Poor Richie...always striving to try and cater to everyone and
everything...no wonder he never actually manages to accomplish
anything. ^_^
>> I'm sure they still keep hard copies on paper, Kiddo,
>Hard copies of what? HTTP Post request? This is the Internet, the errors
>can have their effect within 5 seconds of the user pressing the submit
>button, long before anything has made it to paper (assuming it ever
>will).
Everything makes it to paper, kiddo...unless it's some fly by night
operation, in which case you're more than welcome to bank with
them...I think I'll take my business to a respectable outfit though.
>No they don't. Financial services just move too fast these days for
>everything to be written down (even printed out). The reliance on
>computers is almost total, hence the need for well designed, robust,
>well tested and predictable software (and hardware).
....not according to the IRS, Kiddo...although maybe they just do
things retarded over there in the UK. Here they require hard copies
of every transaction within the past 5 years and won't (in most
instances) accept digital copies.
>> 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
>Only for unusual definitions of "prefect", "working" and "liquid
>website".
Unusual is 99% of the working Internet apparently.
>But hopefully the first (and last) of its kind.
Oh it won't be the last. Once I've perfected the design I'll build an
easily portable template out of it and then share it with the entire
fuckin Inet...remember kiddo, *I* set the standard. ^_^
>> But you see...there's something I have that someone like
>> you will NEVER have...vision...imagination...creativity
>>...*shrugs*...
>And it looks like I have something that you never will have; a real
>understanding of the technologies needed to implement them.
Including your "real" understanding of eval(x); too, huh? *snicker*
You should have shut yourself the fuck up when you had the chance,
kiddo, cause now you've been pretty much exposed as a fuckin moron.
Hell I'm tempted to start xposting into some other programming froups
so EVERYBODY can get a laugh at you!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
[Back to original message]
|