FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.
Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » checking for audio playing ???
Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
cr [message #183567 is a reply to message #183505] Fri, 01 November 2013 03:21 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Richard Damon is currently offline  Richard Damon
Messages: 58
Registered: August 2011
Karma:
Member
On 10/29/13, 7:18 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Damon wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/13, 9:34 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/13, 10:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> > Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> >> […] The one thing that is fairly certain is that the
>>>> >> player will almost certainly NOT be written in PHP,
>>>> >
>>>> > That much is true.
>>>> >
>>>> >> as PHP is normally a server side language, and few clients will
>>>> >> understand it.
>>>> >
>>>> > A common misconception. *No* programming language is “normally” either
>>>> > “server-side” or “client-side”.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly a falsehood.
>>>
>>> [superseded]
>>>
>>>> I would expect that at least 95% of PHP executions
>>>> are done via mod-php or php-cgi in response to a http request, [tl;dr]
>>>
>>> So even by your standards there are 5% left for “client-side”
>>> applications.
>>
>> I consider 95% to be a reasonable definition for "normally". I will add
>> that I normally ignore what you say because normally you are just
>> spouting gibberish (as it seems here).
>
> Why do you reply to the canceled posting?
>
I suppose this shows your level of understanding of Usenet and the
applicability of RFCs. Cancel messages are purely advisory, and
routinely ignored by the backbone because they are not authenticated. It
has been decades since one could expect a cancel to work.

> Your logic is flawed. “normally” is a weasel word. Much like with other
> programming languages, there are applications of PHP that have nothing to do
> with the client-server architecture. Apparently you do not know them. Rest
> assured that your numbers are from *thin air*. OTOH, I did not expect a
> reasonable, well-founded argument to begin with “Clearly”, as pointed out in
> the posting that superseded the one you replied to.

Note, that your superseded message was injected to your server on
USENET, it appears, just 2 minutes before I replied. Due to the
transmission method of USENET, it is quite likely that your superseding
message hadn't reached the server that I read through before I posted,
and it is almost certain that I started my reply before you posted it.

You are snipping the expansion that showed why your statement is off
base. Making the statement that "No programming language is ..." says
that out of every programming language in existence, the count of
language with the following property MUST be zero. Finding even 1
counter example shows the statement false, and the ease of finding these
justifies "clearly".

"Normally", at least in the context it was used is not a "Weasel word".
Yes, it establishes that one is not claiming categorically 100% of the
time a property, just for the vast majority of the cases. For example,
if I state that I normally take the bus to work, this is still true if
about once a month I need to drive for some reason. But on the other
hand, if I actually drive 80% of the time, it would be false to say that
I normally take the bus.

As to being "Out of thin air", I will admit that I have no hard figures
on the actual ratio of usage, but I will stand on my experience that a
19:1 ratio of "Server" usage to CLI usage is very conservative, making
the label of PHP as being a "normally server side language" appropriate.
Similarly for EMCAScript, its usage on the client side so outweighs it
usage in other ways that it is normally a client side language.
>
>>> Please do not quote signatures.
>>
>> I don't, my reader automatically removes signatures from quotes, of
>> course if you put something before the signature delimiter, it ISN'T a
>> signature. For someone who likes to spout about what standards say, it
>> would make sense that you would follow them.
>
> There is no standard about it; there is a recommendation (RFC 1855). Like
> several other people on Usenet, I choose to interpret it differently, and to
> write my signature above the signature delimiter when I have something else
> in my (randomly chosen) .sig that exceeds the recommended limit of four
> lines.

So, rules you don't like can be "reinterpreted"? The documents do
clearly state that the customary "-- " line separates what is to be
considered the "body" of the message from what is to be considered the
signature, which best practices indicates are to be stripped from
replies. The intentional moving of your name to the body would be
normally seen as a sign that you intend it to be part of the message,
and not part of the signature to be automatically stripped.

You also seem to admit that you don't care if you regularly violate the
accepted netiquette, i.e., you really don't care about other people.

>
> So you need your newsreader to think for you?
>

Nope, but I do let it do what computers do well, the routine tasks, like
trimming signatures and adjusting messages to meet the RFC line length
guidelines.

> Score adjusted
>
> PointedEars
>

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: There is some confusion on my site I should clear up
Next Topic: accessing nested unknown unserialized objects
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Wed Nov 27 00:30:12 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04436 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.1.3.
Copyright ©2001-2023 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software