> Life is like biryani. You move the good stuff towards you & you push the weird shit to the side.  

post a new message


lorem ipsum

March 14, 2025 -- 11:04 PM
posted by ( )

Add an image    

Add a link


go back to maingo to old version

March 20, 2007 -- 11:34 AM
posted by edo

Using "& gt ;" doesn't work. Good job Php.

March 20, 2007 -- 11:30 AM
posted by edo

So then Flash was all like:

onClipEvent (load) {
loadVariables("http://localhost/friend.php", this, "GETBENT");
}


And PHP said:

$x = "Fuck off!";
print "myVar=$x";
?>


Couldn't Flash and PHP just get along?

March 20, 2007 -- 8:57 AM
posted by alison

mono? i certainly hope not... though admittedly it's still difficult to pull a full day's effort (and thoughts of mono were quite prevalent last week). i'm going to go visit my gp soon, i think. just to be sure.

... once i catch up on all my now delayed homework. *sigh*
if i don't fall asleep again, haha!

March 20, 2007 -- 7:53 AM
posted by Al

Didn't know that about flash. That would explain why sites have flash entry intros but heavy html content. Meh whatever works for you, I prefer flash because I'm really crudy at coding and I don't care about hits. Obviously you guys need google indexing and other stuff so you need to code it with html and whatever else I haven't mentioned.

March 20, 2007 -- 1:29 AM
posted by nobody knows my face

what the fuck was I sniffing just now? That's the stupidest spelling of "inefficient" that I've ever seen. How the fuck did I do that?

March 20, 2007 -- 1:23 AM
posted by nobody knows my face

"Pfft... why bother with flash at all at that point, then? I can just use PHP to dynamically generate images and spit out one giant image for every page."

Because your load times would be insane and that is retardedly innefecient, doye!

haha, DOYE. I love that word.

March 19, 2007 -- 10:17 PM
posted by Par

What show are they getting free downloads of?

Otherwise, the bit torrent thing isn't that hard. There are a number of people here that I know use it to keep up with TV shows they miss (or, in some unscrupulous cases, watch all their TV on demand through bit torrent downloads.) I'm sure that none of them would mind corrupting helping someone else learn to do it themselves.

(And maybe you have the mono...)

March 19, 2007 -- 8:21 PM
posted by alison

nooo... Taylor, i've been sleeping a lot lately because i've been sick... and my sickness has mostly come in the form of extreme exhaustion... which makes me worry that there's something messed up about me (more than usual, haha)



um, and, small rant: why is it that Americans can get "free downloads" of their favourite television shows but non-americans can't? i'd even be happy to pay for some of the stuff i don't watch (since that's what cable does anyway...) but nooooo... it doesn't seem to be possible. anyone got ideas? hmm, i should probably just bite the bullet and learn how to do the bit torrent thing... but grrrr... i'm in class, or i'm at meetings or whatever during the shows i like to watch, which don't come on at other times up here... so, i'd be willing to pay, and then watch them on the bus instead of the back of the head of the person in front of me, but it just doesn't seem to be possible, or is it? do you know?

March 19, 2007 -- 7:09 PM
posted by Par

Gah, someone needs to punch André Boisclair in the mouth. I can't find a link with text, but I was just watching CBC and a reporter was asking him about the $2.3B that Quebec would be receiving as a result of the budget. He said it was money that Quebec needed. Then (from memory, and Parasphrased®):

Reporter: Doesn't taking money from a federalist formula affirm the concept of federalism?

Boisclair: That's why we're separatists; we feel there's money still left on the table that Quebec deserves access to.

Reporter: But you'll take the money anyway?

Boisclair: You got it.

Cheeky fucker, ain't he?

March 19, 2007 -- 6:58 PM
posted by Par

I haven't read the tome in its entirety, but one part of Jim Flaherty's budget that caught my eye was the bit about the new "National Anti-Drug Strategy":

The investment of $63.8 million over two years will build on existing programs and initiatives ($385 million per year) that are being refocused to create a new National Anti-Drug Strategy. This new strategy places particular emphasis on additional actions to combat the illicit production and distribution of drugs, to address gaps in preventing illicit drug use, to create awareness of illicit drugs and their negative effects, particularly among youth, and to treat and rehabilitate those with drug dependencies. Together, these three initiatives form a focused approach to reducing the supply of and demand for illicit drugs, as well as addressing the crime associated with illegal drugs, leading to safer and healthier communities.

A couple of things. I wonder about how much will be invested in treatment programs and how much will be invested in enforcement. There are of course different views on what constitutes effective policy, but one aspect of the character of Stephen Harper's government that gives me hope is his pragmatism. I'd be pleased if he chose solutions of efficacy over solutions that play to a more traditional social conservative base. (I guess I'll find out soon enough).

I cannot state for certain that re-emphasizing treatment and de-emphasizing law enforcement (or even decriminalizing certain drugs) will necessarily improve the drug situation in this country. I can say that the current situation, in which drugs like marijuana are laced with methamphetamines in order to create a dependent customer base for organized-crime-linked dealers is abhorrent. As far as public policy goes, I'd be willing to accept an increase in the proportion of the population that smokes marijuana if it takes that trade out of the hands of organized crime.

Again, we'll see how pragmatic our PM is on the issue.

load more posts . . .