|
|
Posted by Brendan Gillatt on 10/08/07 15:54
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:31:38 +0100, Brendan Gillatt
> <brendanREMOVETHIS@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I just want to make sure you comprehend what you're dealing with
>>> before you make some really stupid fuckin mistake (like the last
>>> d00d). You've been feigning thick skin, but I wonder how thick it
>>> really goes. Most people draw the line at some point...and I very
>>> frequently have a tendency to cross those lines. So I'm basically
>>> just telling you to be aware of just how far over the line I'll go
>>> online.
>
>> Dear me... I'm quivering.
>
> ...ewww.
>
>> You see, I don't have an attachment to
>> something like usenet. I could happily unplug tommorow and not miss
>> anything at all. This makes your silly threats rather pointless.
>
> We'll see. I've heard that line before though, most often followed up
> in three to six months with, "you crossed the line this time!"
>
> Don't worry, if/when you do, I'll be sure to post a Google link to
> your last message. ^_^
>
>>>> I think I struck a nerve =]
>
>>> Yeah, the one that makes me beat n00b.jobs.
>
>> Like the n00b.job that your website has shown itself to be?
>
> Son, I don't know if you've noticed it or not (yer kinda stupid so
> maybe not) but pretty much every bad thing you've tried to say about
> my sites has been completely ripped apart in six or eight different
> directions.
As in...?
> You'd think after awhile you would like get a fuckin cl00
> and realize that you're essentially a high school dropout trying to
> argue quantum mechanics with fuckin Einstein, but no, you just keep
> tryin. Maybe you just enjoy failing, is that it?
So tell me, why _does_ no one buy those designs on your site?
>> So you're threatening me with violence?
>
> I think maybe we've already been over your horrible deficiency when it
> comes to comprehending the little things like METAPHORS. Woah, sure
> is complicated for you, innt?
Metaphors don't travel well over the internet - I can't read your body
language, terribly sorry ;]
>> Surely you don't say that when you're level headed.
>
> Next time I'll say "verbally beat" just so you won't get confused so
> easily, child. I keep forgetting that you never managed to make it
> past 5th grade English.
>
>>> Sure, if you wanna wind up with something that looks like this:
>>> : http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_PoE/PoEtards_Are_THE_Dumbest_Mother_Fuckers.png
>
>> That's all you could accomplish with photoshop? You should take a course
>> or something.
>
> No, Retard, that's all the better people like YOU are able to
> accomplish WITHOUT the use of MY sprite generator. Maybe you ought to
> start taking notes or something? It seems the longer these posts get
> the harder time you have tracking. Do you have sequencing problems or
> something? Are you a chromosomal deficient? Just what is it exactly
> that makes you so gawd damn Jesus raping stupid?
*yawn*
>>> Free cl00, Dipshit, Photoshop isn't some magixal program that can just
>>> churn out teh uber graphics with nothing more than a few clicks of the
>>> mouse. It requires SKILL and ABILITY.
>
>> Which is more flexible than selecting pre-built bitmaps and sandwiching
>> them together.
>
> And how would you "sandwich" them together using nothing but HTML
> code, you stupid dipshit?
Did you not notice me mentioning PHP?
> At the very least you would need CSS to
> stack them, but then you would need javascript at the very least in
> order to allow dynamic loading of sprite images
No it wouldn't. You can stack DIVs with transparent gifs using nothing
more than CSS and HTML if you felt so inclined.
> ...and at that point
> you've already crossed over that magical line you set in the sand with
> no javascript,
No actually, I said that javascript is perfectly acceptable for web
applications. I did say that it was stupid to rely on it for primary
design such as menus and headers.
> so yer fucked d00d...yer fucked and you didn't even
> manage to find a way that would actually combine the images into one
> savable graphic that the user could download...unless, again, you
> expect the user to have to use print screen and then paste it into a
> separate graphics program and save it that way.
No no no, I assume you didn't hear me correct again. I DID mention PHP.
You must simply be ignoring that fact because, if you remember, you did
then go on to say that PHP was useless for "color transform matrixes" or
whatever that dumb terminology you wrote was.
> I hope you realize kid, that the more you talk, the more you show off
> just how LITTLE you understand about web coding...not that, that's
> some big surprise, most Amish of the Internet have very little
> comprehension as to how everything works. Your thought process runs
> like:
> "Microsoft bad"
I have no problem with microsoft - I am sitting in front of windows
right now.
> "Different good"
It certainly helps if you're creative.
> "Outdated good"
No I can 100% guarantee I'm running the latest release of Thunderbird
right now - that's not outdated. I object to side-lining large numbers
of users simply for the sake of a new-is-best thought process.
> "Deficient good"
?
> "Learning new things bad"
Why would I have problems with learning new things? It's obvious I have
a more firm grasp of most things closely related to web-design and user
experience. You do have a problem with moving on from flash, however.
> "Change bad"
Not really. It is if it leaves users out, however.
> "Me no like evil Microsoft"
It's true I don't like their marketing and I'm not afraid to admit that.
I certainly have no problem using their software, however. I'm just
flexible in respect that I _can_ move away from windows centralized IDEs
(i.e. Flash)
> Really, you aren't capable of thinking too far beyond that, are you?
Sure I am.
>>> Some of the custom parts I've
>>> made for the generator took HOURS to construct. And even reworking
>>> existing parts to work on my models takes upwards of an hour per.
>>> Creating the layer splits and testing adds on yet another half hour.
>
>> You poor soul. Too bad no one thought you were talented enough to employ
>> you as a graphics designer - hence the big shiny donate button.
>
> I do freelance graphic design work all the time you retard. The last
> publicized one I did was nyah:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/In_Progress_4.png
You do realise that you completely failed at turning that into vector?
Look at the 'g' - it's an entirely different font face to the bitmap. I
also suggest you read up on colour theory. It's something that is
completely neglected in that design. The colours aren't great I'm afraid.
> A raster to raster/vector hybrid conversion
Woah you mean you like used vectors TOO? Holy cow! How'd you manage that?!
> not that YOU have any
> fuckin clue as to what that means, huh kid?
You seriously think that I don't know the difference between a vector
and a raster? I've written code in C to translate between the two.
> Quick, run and Google,
> try and play pretend! LOL, I don't know what's funnier, the fact that
> you wanna play pretend web designer or the fact that you think you can
> fool people with such slipping dives into the most superficial of
> Google searches.
I can assure you that google isn't required to tell the difference
between a raster and a vector.
>>>> I'm not saying flash isn't useful. Hell, I even use it on my site for
>>>> non-atomic design elements. It should never, ever be relied on, however.
>>>> I bet you never learned that from HTML for Dummies.
>
>>> Sorry, Dummie, but my knowledge wasn't slurped up from some third
>>> party, it comes directly from my own methodical testing and
>>> experimentation. As far as a user front end...you don't even need
>>> HTML anymore:
>>> : http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/Forum_Template/index.swf
>
>> I'd be curious to see how your testing weighs up to the research done by
>> the W3 consortium.
>
> *shakes head*
>
> You don't even realize how fuckin stupid that last statement of yours
> made you sound, do you?
>
> Free cl00, dipshit, the W3C does not set standards nor do they really
> do any sort of "research". All the W3C does is set a bunch of
> arbitrary, useless, PROPOSED "standards"...which aren't actually
> followed by...well, anybody.
You mean that browsers are based entirely on guess work?
It's just chance that the <p> element produces a paragraph then?
> Since no browser maker follows all of
> the W3Cs PROPOSED "standards", well, that often makes W3C
> compatibility the MOST INcompatible and NONcross-compatible way of
> doing things.
No, it really doesn't. If you have a problem with browser compatibility
why don't you contribute your obviously brilliant programming skills to
improve one of the open source ones?
> Very, very, very few people will actually go through
> and methodically test every last little fuckin tag and CSS property on
> every last fuckin browser version on every last fuckin operating
> system imaginable in order to TRULY find out the MOST cross compatible
> methods.
Yes and I'm sure that is also exactly the same as the number of decent
web-designers out there. I certainly test on as many systems as I can
get my hands on.
> The W3C does NOT do that, they unreasonably expect all
> browser makers to simply follow their RECOMMENDED "standards" and
> their attitude is basically, "To hell with any browser/OS combo that
> doesn't." ...which, you know, is ALL of them. *rolls eyes*
That's because they spend a very decent amount of time creating the
standards which try too keep the web... standard.
> Keep Google diving for outdated intelligence though, Slurps, it's
> pretty amusing to rip apart at least.
>
>>>>> The Sprite Generator wasn't made for your type. Now go plow yourself
>>>>> a cornfield you stupid hat wearing, Amish pig fucker.
>
>>>> L-O-L. You're working yourself up some bad now dear.
>
>>> L-O-L-L-E-R-C-O-P-T-E-R!!1!!1!!!!
>
>>> ...he's laughing everyone...REALLY. *nods*
>
>> I did have a snigger at that comment - I just find your brash commments
>> pretty amusing.
>
> Guess which ONE of us cares! ^_^
>
>>>> It seems to me that people with more knowledge turn off javascript -
>>>> probably because they check milw0rm daily and realise that 99% of remote
>>>> attacks are in fact script based. Ask your gran if she leaves JS off and
>>>> she'll not have a clue as to what you're talking about.
>>> WRONG!
>
>>> 99.9% of ALL attacks are SE based, social engineering. Even if they
>>> happen to use scripts they STILL require user stupidity to work.
>>> That's why the smarter people don't disable javascript, because
>>> they're not dumb enough to fall for stupid SE tricks. And as you
>>> said, everyone else just ignores the problem.
>
>> Sorry, have you actually even read milw0rm? It's not a glo<COCK SLAP>
>
> Have YOU actually read anything on the site? Wait, no, more
> importantly, did you actually COMPREHEND anything on the site? I only
> ask cause uh, if you use their lil search tool and look for
> "javascript", you get like seven hits...none of which are relevant.
I don't mean use there search tool. I mean read their exploits section -
just see how many are based on a scripted web language.
> There's like two patched Firefox vulnerabilities, one patched
> Konqueror vulnerability, an Outhouse Express vulnerability and some
> other retarded nonsense "exploits".
Which are based on........ that's right JavaScript. I don't get how you
call them nonsense? They actually do make perfect sense!
> ...wow...tell me again why it is that your stupid ass is so fearful
> and scared of teh big bad javascript?
Why are you scared of standards?
> Oh, coincidentally, a search for PHP brings up over a hundred
> exploits...LOL, rather ironic really, innt? ^_^
However, it is trivial to get users to visit a site with poisoned
javascript, while MUCH harder to get a server to accept and execute
malicious PHP.
>>>> Also, why do you need JS to load a flash object?
>
>>> I don't, but it's needed for other things, like my site tracker that I
>>> plan to put on all my sites.
>
>> So you don't need code to load your flash animation but it's there
>> anyway? I really don't follow.
>
> Reading comprehension sure is a bitch for you, innt? What part of
> IT'S NEEDED FOR OTHER THINGS did you NOT comprehend the first time I
> said it? I mean what the fuck man are you taking stupid pills today
> or what?
No it isn't:
document.write("<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash'
pluginspage='http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash'
src='main.swf?value=' width=760 height=424>");
Where in the hell of all that shite is anything _else_ happening? Why
exactly don't you just take the bit that is inserted anyway and add it
into the HTML?
>>>> Bang on! I do like nondescript, plain text _content_. It provides
>>>> information to me, more so than flashing animations.
>
>>> And this is where you're shortsighted. You don't comprehend the
>>> concept of using design to enhance the content. Refer to this post:
>>> : http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12516-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=34733&messageID=639263&start=-9994
>
>> Why would I refer to a post that you yourself wrote? Sounds a bit
>> pointless to me. Every respected author on the web uses CSS styling to
>> show emphasis - not CAPITALS. No one likes to read a post that shouts at
>> them. I seem to recall that blogs are "tweenage blogger board hoo-ha".
>> What on earth are you doing posting to one?
>
> Maybe if you had the capability to read it you would know why, eh
> Stupid?
I did read it. Still, why would I use your own article as argument
against you?
> Personally though, I like you better NOT reading it, keeping the dumb,
> dumber servers me far better than it does to hinder me.
I did read it and it is very poorly written article.
You still haven't answered your contradiction of whether or not you do
like blogs.
>>>>>> You could make the same thing
>>>>>> using proper (X)HTML better, faster and more extensible.
>
>>>>> LOL, you stupid retard, you have no idea what you're even talking
>>>>> about (hell your stupid ass probably hasn't even seen it).
>
>>>> Seen what? XHTML? Dear me, someone hasn't done their research. Google
>>>> dork my name and read my page's source code. I'd like to see what you
>>>> mean when you realise that I use modern Doctypes and language for my
>>>> pages, fonts and colour schemes that are easy on the eye, and will
>>>> render on anything from a V100 terminal to a graphics workstation.
>
>>> Yeah and none of yer content is worth looking at as a result.
>
>> Denial ;]
>
> Let me know when you manage to read through (and comprehend) that
> link, Junior. Until then you're not much more than a foolish child in
> my eyes. Maybe someday you'll comprehend what "design" is all about,
> until then, you're stuck with making sites that are so pathetic they
> can't even manage to show up in Alexa:
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.brendangillatt.co.uk
>
> LOL, you're so pathetic you practically have NEGATIVE visitors! ^_^
Strangely enough I don't get an ego boost from the number of hits I get
on my site. I would rather no one goes to my site than attempt to force
people to who don't want to.
> I love your "bog":
>
> "Coming Soon"
>
> *snicker*
>
> Wait, it gets funnier!
>
> "I'm hacking Simple PHP Blog"
>
> Translation:
>
> "I'm spaghetti bitching someone else's code cause I'm too damn stupid
> to figure out how to do it myself."
Actually I have infact started writing my own blog software instead. I
may just use the portion of code that deals with disk access from SPB.
> " to fit in with my site theme at the moment."
>
> ...WHAT THEME!? Goober, you don't HAVE a theme. You have a LACK of
> theme. LOL
No, no you don't understand - I do have a theme. It revolves around the
fact that all the pages look similar aside from headings and text
content - that constitutes a theme does it not?
> Pretty much all you would need to do is take out any graphics and
> change the colors to black text on a white background and you'd be
> fuckin done.
>
> "It shouldn't be too long before it's sorted out."
>
> ...just as soon as you figure out how to code. LOL, sure kid, sure.
> Let us all know when you finally manage to get out of yer diapers and
> start coding something that's got some meat on it.
No actually it is as soon as I finish coding my current project - an
embedded system written in the language that probably defeats your mind:
C. Hell, the graphics routines (which use vectors ;]) are written in
assembler - get googling.
> Have you seen my blog btw?
>
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/
>
> ...completely custom, all my own code
You can tell - all it seems to show is
"This site requires JavaScript and Flash 8+!"
;]
> Flash front end with a PHP/SQL
> backend. Embeded video with custom controls, clickable calendar
> navigation tool with a slick, appealing and engaging design.
When I do turn on javascript, close my solaris virtual machine and
enable flash extensions...
It's 99% grey, the text cannot be resized nor read by a screen reader,
links are slow and unresponsive, there ARE no urls so I can't bookmark
any part of it (perhaps that's a positive point), blue links on blue
background for selecting the months, all elements are squashed together,
etc....
> My blog
> generates around $25 a month in ad hits. How much money do you make
> with your blog? Oh, right, you don't have one, huh? LOL
I make nothing - I wouldn't stoop to such a amateur level as to add
adverts to my site - yet another bad design choice. Oh, and I don't see
them anyway - my DNS blocks anything from the google adserver.
> Face it kid, yer just some stupid ass poser bitch running around
> playing wannabe web developer and you don't even have a fuckin cl00.
Comparisons of mine and your sites shows otherwise.
> You try and couch your lack of ability in areas like interface design
> and graphics in the form of some "I art holier than thou minimalism".
> What you fail to comprehend is that not having a design doesn't equate
> to a minimalist design.
When did I mention minimalism? I design for maximum readability.
> Minimalism is actually about presenting
> COMPLEX designs using simple forms.
Yes, I have studied art.
> Essentially, the more complex
> design you're able to create with simple shapes and other forms, the
> more advanced your minimalist design is. In your case, you HAVE NO
> DESIGN, period, you have a void, a pit of desolation and boredom that
> does nothing but emphasize just how mundane and trite the little
> content you have is.
Nope, I have readability.
> In your case you don't need a website, you need an RSS feed, that's
> it. Hell, a fuckin RSS feed would have more of a design than your
> sloppy molestation of HTML.
I will in fact, also have an RSS feed. Furthermore, I can style my RSS
feed to look like anything I like - ever heard of XSL styling?
>>>>> The ONLY
>>>>> other thing that it could have possibly been made with was
>>>>> Java...that's it, Java, that's the only other web language available
>>>>> that has color transform matrices (amongst a slew of other stuff
>>>>> that's needed). You could ~possibly~ half-ass it in PHP and
>>>>> javascript, but it'd be WAY inefficient and the home brew color
>>>>> transform matrices wouldn't be nearly as good.
>
>>>> Errr, your "colour transform matrices" aren't all that complex. I've
>>>> seen your ActionScript and I could write that in 2 hours in PHP.
>
>>> Then let's see you do it! You run at the mouth pretty good, talkin
>>> shit, claiming how easy it is, so do it, Mouth! Or is pullin shit out
>>> of yer ass all the better you can do?
>
>> Okay what would you like me to do? What transform would you like me to
>> code? I charge £15 per hour I warn.
>
> I'll pay you a BILLION DOLLARS if you can recreate my sprite generator
> and ALL of its functionality using nothing but HTML and CSS (your
> claim).
No, no, I _did_ mention PHP - don't forget that. Even you mentioned php:
>>>>> You could ~possibly~ half-ass it in PHP and
>>>>> javascript, but it'd be WAY inefficient and the home brew color
>>>>> transform matrices wouldn't be nearly as good.
> Get crackin, Junior!
>
> LOL, what a fuckin poser class college flunkie retard you are. ^_^
>
>>>>> The only thing HTML is good for is displaying simple pictures and
>>>>> text...and it's not even very good at that. Flash supports 32 bit
>>>>> alpha transparent JPEGs fer fuck sake! Not that you have any fuckin
>>>>> clue as to what those are, why you would want to use them and most
>>>>> importantly HOW you would use them. See that really is the basis of
>>>>> everything you're babbling...ignorance.
>>>> Since when did JPEGs have alpha channels? Flash supports sprites that
>>>> are generated from JPEGs and then have an alpha channel applied.
>>>>
>>>> Don't even think about mentioning JPEG2000s - no one uses them and they
>>>> will die away slowly like the internet fad that you are.
>>> Refer to this post:
>>> : http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12516-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=34733&messageID=639224&start=-9994
>>>
>>> "Support of 32 bit JPEGs (more specifically you can import 32 PNG
>>> files, use JPEG compression on them and Flash will keep the
>>> transparency layer intact)."
>
>> Hence not supporting alpha channel JPEGS (whatever they may be). You can
>> infact do exactly the same in PHP, saving it as a GD bitmap after
>> importing JPEGs
>
> No, ya can't, Stupid. There ya go, runnin at the mouth again. Once
> again, the difference between the two of us is that I have actual,
> live, working examples of EVERY concept I claim, where as you...well
> you're still trying to rip off someone else's blog, huh kid? *nods*
No, I'm using the source of an open source project to provide some
functionality to an open source project of my own which I will then
release back to the community.
>>>>> Of course it's slow you retard, do you have any fuckin idea as to what
>>>>> it's even doing? There's a couple methods I plan to employ in the
>>>>> next version that maybe be able to speed it up a bit, using
>>>>> ByteArray.compress() but ultimately the speed issue is affected most
>>>>> by the number of users who are using it, and, well, that's quite a
>>>>> damn lot:
>>>>> : http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Well_That_Aint_Good.png
>>>>>
>>>>> You have understand, Shortsighted, I ain't runnin some tweenage muppet
>>>>> fuck Pokemon fan site with 12 hits a month, collectively my sites get
>>>>> upwards of around a HALF MILLION unique hits every month.
>
>>>> You mean, like HALF A MILLION? wow! My home computer could handle that.
>>>> And yes I have stress tested way over that.
>
>>> *pats you on the head*
>>>
>>> Sure kid, sure.
>
>> *grin* Let's do the mathematics.
>> 60 seconds in a minute *
>> 60 minutes in an hour *
>> 24 hours in a day *
>> 30 days in a month =
>> 2,592,000 seconds in a month.
>>
>> If you get 500,000 hits per month that's
>>
>> 2,592,000/500,000 = 5.184
>>
>> One hit every 5 seconds! Phew, you work your quad core some hard!
>
> And the amateur shows off his idiocy once again. Free cl00, dipshit,
> every visitor is not going to magically space themselves apart just
> for the benefit of your magical equation. In REALITY you would
> probably wind up with like 500 simultaneous hits right at say 5:45pm
> pacific time and would maybe only have like 5 hits from 1:00am to
> 5:00am pacific time.
Not to that extreme. you would perhaps get 20 simultaneous hits per
second (that's a 100x boost of visitors) and yes, my home apache server
will chew through 20 hits/second, graphics and all.
> As fuckin retarded as you are you obviously lack the ability to
> comprehend how things work in the REAL WORLD. But then, how could
> you, I mean your site generates so little traffic you can't even
> manage to make it on Alexa fer fuck sake.
Why would I care about Alexa?
> Not to mention if those 500 simultaneous hits are all engaging in CPU
> intensive tasks (like saving sprite sheets in which the graphics are
> constructed from scratch at the bit level), or serving video streams,
> etc, etc.
At the bit level? You can't even address x86 processors at the bit
level! You really have no idea what the hell you're talking about do you?
You must mean at the pixel level. Besides, sprite sheets are at max
300x300 pixels - not exactly weather map proportions is it?
>>>>> But then your type isn't much for actually doing your own tests and
>>>>> benchmarking. Pretty much you just slurp up someone else's bullshit
>>>>> and then call it good. Free cl00, that method, it's the MOST CROSS
>>>>> COMPATIBLE WAY of achieving that "portal" look
>
>>>> No it isn't. That's what _you_ believe is. Simply because you have never
>>>> tried CSS.
>
>>> WRONG! Again, stupid, I've TRIED ALL EXISTING METHODS and I've tested
>>> them ON ALL MAJOR BROWSERS ON ALL MAJOR OPERATING SYSTEMS...and yer
>>> CSS way breaks on a whole fuckin slew of combinations (like IE on teh
>>> Mac).
>
>> No, you obviously have bad CSS skills. Every piece of CSS I have written
>> works on all browsers and OSs I've tested. That includes Mac, Win
>> 95-Vista, various linux distros, solaris 10, my pocketpc phone with
>> Firefox, Opera, Safari, IE mobile, Opera mobile, lynx, Konquerer, etc.
>
> So let's see it, Junior. Let's see "your" rendition of the "portal
> look" using CSS...and by "your" I mean the code you ripped off from
> someone else who CLAIMED that it was cross compatible.
Okay, I'll post some tomorrow. By the way, a portal is probably the
_worst_ design in the history of all time. Essentially all you're doing
is reducing the amount of space available to the user with no benefit.
It's not as if a 15" monitor is big enough as it is!
> Once you get yer example up I'll bitch slap you proper with a few
> screen shots. Hell, I'll even throw in a few links where other people
> point blank say what it does and doesn't work on.
Sure thing. Just make sure you also provide a screenshot of your site in
the same environment - in fact, I'll test out your site in a couple of
environments too ;]
> ...oh, btw, no one, least of all me, is ~actually~ expecting you to
> put up an example. Simply put, at this point, no one believes you're
> anything more than some poser class wannabe whose runnin the fuck at
> the mouth about shit you've never done (and won't ever do).
No no, you're just a little scared that I may provide an example or two
that will trash your ideas.
>>> My way is the MOST cross compatible way that exists, I know
>>> that for a fact because *I* actually tested it myself. I tested all
>>> the other methods too (which is why I know they don't work as well).
>
>> What you did was to start off with an assumption that flash is the best
>> way then disregarded everything else.
>
> WRONG!
>
> I actually used to not like Flash, I started off as a big CSS and
> javascript supporter...until I actually took the bother to do my own
> testing, benchmarking and experimentation and found it to be wholly
> lacking. But then, what would you know about it, you can't even
> manage to steal someone else's code for yer fuckin blog. LOL
Believe me - it isn't stealing. It's open source. And I shall be
contributing back to the community too. If you are so sure that I steal
code, check out the section in my site by the same name and you will
realise that I have given out 100% more code than you have.
>>>>> (vertical and
>>>>> horizontal centering)...well, most cross compatible next to Flash.
>>>>> You can achieve the same effect with Flash and you don't even need
>>>>> HTML code:
>>>>> : http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/Forum_Template/index.swf
>
>>>> So why don't you just go ahead and serve that to your poor visitors?
>>> I probably will at some point, it's the direction that I'm headed in.
>>> My web design model continually changes and evolves.
>
>> It doesn't seem to. It seems very much static with regards to the fact
>> that flash is the _only_ design element you use.
>
> Yes well I think we've firmly establish that you're a complete and
> total retard when it comes to these sorts of things.
Why thank you...
> Most of my
> current sites are actually a mixture of Flash, javascript, vbscript,
VBscript?! I was sure that died a slow and painful death a long time
ago. Nothing apart from Internet Explorer even attempt to use it. Even
in Internet Explorer it is so unlike proper Basic that it may as well
have a different name.
> PHP, XML, CSS, SQL, etc, etc. In fact I don't even HAVE a site that
> only uses ONE web coding form. And many of my sites aren't even using
> any Flash. Like the Datarchive for example:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/data_archive/
Someone didn't test for cross-compatibility. In firefox the boxes don't
even line up (I'm not sure if that's how they're supposed to be - I
haven't tried it in IE6). If that IS how it's supposed to look, it's
atrocious!
> Or the NP Index site:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/npindex/index.html
>
> Or the perfect liquid prototype:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/liquid/
Ummm, white page? Oh right yeah now the images have loaded... phew. Why
in hell does the page reload every time I resize the browser window?!?!
What made you do that?
> Or the Histology site:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/histology-1/
Why is the page text an image? Please, tell me why?
> Etc, etc, etc.
>
> Again though, half the time you're just making a bunch of ASSumptions
> based on a limited sampling. Which coincidentally is why you can't
> even manage to rip off someone else's code for your blog. You simply
> haven't the attention span needed to even comprehend their code in the
> first place. Instead you skim and jump to conclusions as you dance
> through it, not understanding a word of it and wasting all your time
> in the process.
>
> Tell us though, do you fuck like you code?
What? did that make sense to anyone apart fro yourself?
Either you're asking if "I fuck like 'you code'?" whatever 'you code' is...
Or you're asking me if I fuck like my code? Ummm... I don't follow - my
code doesn't actually 'fuck' anything. It serves web-pages mostly.
> Sloppy and deficient. LOL
Oh! I see - you're trying to say that I am sloppy and deficient when I
fuck? How mature.
>>>>>> 4) You send the whole lot of sprites to the server only for it to just
>>>>>> save the bitmaps as a PNG. All that can be done in PHP
>>>>> Your ignorance is showing once again. Free cl00, you retard, you can
>>>>> alter the individual hue/sat/lightness of object parts and PHP doesn't
>>>>> have any sort of prebuilt color matrices. You could half-ass your own
>>>>> I suppose, but they wouldn't even be as remotely as good as the ones
>>>>> prebuilt into Flash (not to mention they would be slow as fuck in PHP
>>>>> and would eat up a shit load of server resources).
>
>>>> No actually they don't. I've done colour transforms in PHP and they can
>>>> be made fantastically fast.
>
>>> Yeah, fantastically fast, limiting and half-ass!
>
>> I'm not sure how you coded yours but all the stuff I've done with
>> graphics in PHP is blindingly fast. More so when you use graphics as
>> small as sprites.
>
> What the fuck do you mean 'all the stuff you've done', you haven't
> done ANYTHING with graphics in PHP you fuckin retard!
Based on?
> Hell, you're so
> damn fuckwitted you can't even manage to rip off someone else's blog
> code!
>
>>>> If you're unhappy about the speed of PHP go
>>>> to C. Actually don't bother, you'll just end up crashing your server.
>
>>> Yeah, because that plays *SO* nice with other web language forms.
>>> *rolls eyes*
>
>> What was that? 'web language forms'? Please explain your terminology.
>
> Why bother, you wouldn't comprehend it.
No, continue - I'm sure it makes more sense than what you said before.
>> The only languages you use are PHP and flash.
>
> Flash isn't a language, Numbnuts. I use ACTIONSCRIPT and I use a hell
> of a lot more than just ActionScript and PHP. Of course, you're so
> fuckin stupid I can see as how you wouldn't be able to tell. Hell yer
> dumbass probably doesn't even know how to look at the source code of
> someone else's site.
Scroll up a bit - there's a fair few snippets in that post.
>> Flash doesn't give a damn
>> what you have on the server and PHP will happily run alongside C. Why do
>> you think it will not?.
>
> Why do you think it will? I mean it's not like you have any
> experience or sites or examples showing that you've even attempted to
> do it in the first place. Why do you make the ASSumption based on
> ZERO first hand knowledge and experience? Show me the code, Junior,
> show me the code...otherwise all yer doin is talkin shit, you poser
> class wannabe.
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk/code
>>>>>> 5) The saving animation actually does nothing at all - it's simply a
>>>>>> sprite. A very pointless, time wasting sprite.
>
>>>>> Again, Dumbfuck, yer ignorance is showing. The sprite sheet that's
>>>>> generated is for use in the program RPG Maker XP. You import the
>>>>> sprite sheets you create and then use them in your custom made game.
>>>>> They're not for like fuckin avatars or some other kind of tweenage
>>>>> blogger board hoo-ha.
>
>>>> Sorry.. what? Did I even mention the sprite sheets? No - I meant the
>>>> stupid bar that takes days to scroll across the screen before finally
>>>> sending the data to your PHP.
>
>>> If you're bitching about the time it takes to save, sorry, but that's
>>> as fast as it can go right now. The next version will be somewhat
>>> faster, I plan to use the Byte.compress() class and some other tricks,
>>> but overall there is no way to REALLY make it uber speedy (or if there
>>> is, no one has developed it yet).
>
>> No that saving thing actually doesn't do anything at all - it is a
>> sprite. I decompiled your crappy flash and it is a fixed length sprite
>> that will take the same amount of time to traverse no matter what the
>> flash is doing.
>
> You didn't decompile anything you retarded fuckwit and you don't even
> have the first clue as to how the sprite generator even works.
You are kidding right? Would you like me to e-mail you a .fla file?
Anyway, recognise this:
body = "none";
step = 1;
scroller._visible = false;
scroll_base._visible = false;
donation_stoof._visible = false;
hsl_extras_temp = "blank";
nav_select("body");
cover._visible = false;
percentage._visible = false;
button_state = "";
vote_num = "0";
donate_amount = "1.00";
if (value == "donated")
{
} // end if
select_gray = new flash.filters.ColorMatrixFilter();
select_gray.matrix = new Array(3.330000E-001, 3.330000E-001,
3.330000E-001, 0, 0, 3.330000E-001, 3.330000E-001, 3.330000E-001, 0, 0,
3.330000E-001, 3.330000E-001, 3.330000E-001, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0);
select_normal = new flash.filters.ColorMatrixFilter();
select_normal.matrix = new Array(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0);
Just a taster.
>> Yes you already mentioned compression, something that will make a
>> negligible difference to the speed.
>
> Keep pretending that you know what you're talking about, it'll make it
> that much more amusing in the next release version when the speed is
> increased by about 20%.
Yup, that's still 14 seconds!
> And yes, I'll be sure to verbally molest you
> up your ass with your own fuckwitted stupidity when I do it. Oh and
> unlike you, I actually make good on what I claim to code, where as
> you, well, let us know if you ever manage to finish ripping off
> someone else's blogger board code you retarded fuckwit. And no, none
> of us is holding our breath.
>
>> The way to make it faster is to get rid of that stupid sprite and use a
>> real language - not ActionScript.
>
> LOL, you really are living in a bubble of idiocy, aren't you? ^_^
>
> I hope you don't ever plan to actually try and make money off web
> design/coding...cause with yer present skill set and
> understanding...yeah, yer a wannabe, poser class, college flunkie scam
> artist at best.
I can assure you that Web Design will probably not be a career choice -
I much prefer lower level coding in things like C.
> As far as technical ability, well, all you've proven thus far is that
> you TRY and rip off other people's code and you're really good at
> takin shit apart...
I'd like to see you write code for 18F4620s - take a trip to
microchip.com if you want to see.
> I know a lot of little kids like that. Hell, I
> remember being your age, six years old, going around taking everything
> apart...LOL...eventually though I grew the fuck up and learned how to
> BUILD things, instead of just takin 'em apart.
There's nothing wrong with taking old junk apart - It fills my box of
spare parts for building things. I never have a shortage of SRAMS ;]
> Let us know when you
> finally get to that level, Halfass.
Scroll up a tad.
>>>>> You're not so good with the metaphors, are you?
>
>>>> I believe me I am. Just not ones that don't actually have meanings.
>
>>> Uh huh. You must have some kind of mental disorder if there's no way
>>> you can imagine words having a fire like destruction to them. Where
>>> the fuck do you think the word "flame" (in relation to posts) came
>>> from, you stupid dipshit.
>
>> Not from physically burning words I'm pretty sure =]
>
> It's the whole METAPHOR part you seem to keep fucking up on. Here,
> see if you can't educate yourself you dribbling little crotch goblin:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
>
> Now, tell the class, just what the fuck part of "NOT LITERALLY" are
> you failing to grasp?
*sigh*
- --
Brendan Gillatt
brendan {at} brendangillatt {dot} co {dot} uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBACD7433
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHClKmkA9dCbrNdDMRAiDdAKC0oxqMvWkEVcA2rqYYxg2c7xjZUQCfWZ74
dDhUP1wGLo/x88pizlOQe/Q=
=HMRm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Back to original message]
|