IOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger
-
@boomzilla said:
What are you, a woman? If a man hears about a problem, he will try to come up with a way to fix it.
This different-sex, different-approach mentality caused a minor row between me and SWMBO one time; a woman usually wants to unload, but a bloke wants to fix - so when she's unloading some gripe, I'm helpfully coming up with several solutions but SHE'S NOT FUCKING INTERESTED SHE JUST WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT WILL YOU SHUT-THE-FUCK-UP-I'M-TALKING-CHRIST-YOU'RE-INSENSITIVE etc...
Then the same thing happened to her. A facebook "friend" was unloading, she came up with various suggestions etc - all of which were shot down in flames. She came downstairs and proudly said "I've just been a bloke online!"
Beer smells odd when snorted out through nostrils.
@boomzilla said:
You obviously can't actually be a woman, since there are no women on the internet.
Wah.. wait... that's NOT morbs in
hisher avatar?
-
@C-Octothorpe said:
@boomzilla said:
there are no women on the internet.
I call shenanigans! I've seen thousands of women on the Internet. Ever heard of porn?! Smartass...Now find one who's surname doesn't end in "JPG".
-
@serguey123 said:
Caught with my hand in the@C-Octothorpe said:
Well, if that's what you're in to... That's pretty specifc, though. Kind of like my sadomasopedorobonecrobestiality fetish.
You are confusing me with dhromed
@C-Octothorpe said:
EDIT: I have to point out that I've never heard of sadomasopedorobonecrobestiality, but for some reason was the top suggestion when I typed "sad" in google...
Google uses your previous searches among other things to make the sugestions, you pervert!
vasolinecookie jar again...
-
@Cassidy said:
@C-Octothorpe said:
Now find one who's surname doesn't end in "JPG".@boomzilla said:
there are no women on the internet.
I call shenanigans! I've seen thousands of women on the Internet. Ever heard of porn?! Smartass...
-
-
@dhromed said:
Don't start this again...@serguey123 said:
You are confusing me with dhromed
That so unlikely. He was talking to you.
-
@Cassidy said:
"I've just been a bloke online!"
I'm pretty sure it normally happens the other way around.
-
@C-Octothorpe said:
vasolineI assume that this is like vaseline but made of fresh baby fat
@dhromed said:
That so unlikely. He was talking to you.
But we are so much alike! (except for the sadomasopedorobonecrobestiality which I know is your thing) ;)
-
@serguey123 said:
(except for the sadomasopedorobonecrobestiality which I know is your thing) ;)
I don't even know how to read that word.
-
@dhromed said:
sado-maso-pedo-robo-necro-bestiality. Haven't you ever heard of the painful-sex-with-a-dead-robotically-altered-baby-animal fetish? Jeeze, live a little, will ya!@serguey123 said:
(except for the sadomasopedorobonecrobestiality which I know is your thing) ;)
I don't even know how to read that word.
-
@serguey123 said:
But we are so much alike! (except for the sadomasopedorobonecrobestiality which I know is your thing) ;)
That, and your avatar doesn't look like [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stipe"]Michael Stipe[/url] eating the soul of a young child.
-
@dhromed said:
@serguey123 said:
(except for the sadomasopedorobonecrobestiality which I know is your thing) ;)
I don't even know how to read that word.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_administrator]SA[/url]
[url=http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/]DOM[/url]
[url=http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.22/as/index.html]as[/url]
[url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/members/blakeyrat.aspx]OP[/url]
[url=http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html]ed[/url]
[url=http://streetfighter.wikia.com/wiki/Oro]Oro[/url]
[u][color=blue]bone[/color][/u]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbe]'crobe[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IF_(x86_flag)#STI]STI[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali]Ali[/url]
[url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ty#Abbreviation]TY[/url]
-
@C-Octothorpe said:
sado-maso-pedo-robo-necro-bestiality. Haven't you ever heard of the painful-sex-with-a-dead-robotically-altered-baby-animal fetish? Jeeze, live a little, will ya!
Equius and Aradiabot, obviously.
-
-
Yeah, but they're all 6 sweeps.
Though it's unclear what their "legal age" is.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
You don't have to say something explicitly to imply it, you know. In this case, it is implied by the fact that you are complaining about the browser stopping what it's doing and going somewhere else that you don't want it to stop what it's doing and go somewhere else.I disagree. The reason the browser closes the connections during unload is because IT'S NOT *YOUR* BROWSER. If they say "stop what you're doing and go do something else", that's what the browser should do.
I agree. I don't know what kind of crazy straw man you're trying to create here, but have I ever said otherwise? Quote me. I dare you.
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
Ah, now I get to throw the straw man accusation at you. Look back at that quote of yours that I was replying to. You saidNot "Oh, hang on, this other guy wants me to do something first".
This might shock you, but as it turns out, modern computers can do more than one thing at a time. "Load my analytics pixel" and "load a new webpage" are not mutually-exclusive.
@blakeyrat said:
The point of closing connections during UNLOAD is so the browser can get on with loading the new page as quickly as possible
remember? And I said that I disagree; the point of closing connections during UNLOAD is NOT so the browser can get on with loading the new page as quickly as possible. It is because it is not your browser and therefore it is getting on with what the user wants it to do, not what you want it to do. So thanks for explaining the basics of multitasking and asynchronous I/O to me, but it's irrelevant to your own point and to my rebuttal of it. My point is not about how long it takes to load the next page; my point is about trespass to chattels. Regardless whether it delays the next page load or not, running your request still takes up my cpu cycles, my electricity and my bandwidth. When I navigate to your page in my browser, I'm granting implied permission for you to run your code on my computer. That implied permission is withdrawn by the act of navigating away; the moment I click away, your code no longer has permission to run on my machine and it's entirely appropriate for the browser not to run it, because that's what intention I have indicated to my browser by doing so.@blakeyrat said:
(Rather, they should not be mutually-exclusive. The only reason they are mutually-exclusive now is due to a side-effect of how pages are unloaded combined with a general lack of interest on the part of browser makers to support web analytics.)
A lack of interest that I claim is entirely justified by one of the design requirements of the browser software: do what the user wants, not what someone else wants.@blakeyrat said:
Moreover, since my only alternative in this case is to artificially delay the new page load,
No it isn't. You also have the alternative of just sucking it up.@blakeyrat said:
it doesn't benefit anybody to make loading an analytics pixel in the BEFOREUNLOAD handler impossible. It doesn't help me. It doesn't help the user. It's harmful all-around.
That's your code that is causing the harm there, by artificially delaying the new page load in pursuit of your undesirable goal.Also, isn't TRWTF that you're attempting to use this non-standard extension for an entirely undocumented and unsupported purpose? As far as I can see the only documented use of onBeforeUnload is for returning a string in order to have the browser open an "Are you sure" dialog. Nothing else.
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
Yeah, and they all seem to cope somehow.What's that? You're a special case, you say?
No, I'm not. Virtually every website worth money has analytics code of some sort installed.
@blakeyrat said:
The W3C may consider it a "special case", but then again they consider having text in columns a special case, so they're obviously off their rocker and don't know shit about the web as she is spoke.
And what you want to do is less-obviously disruptive, but it still would consume my resources for your benefit and I'm still glad that my browser doesn't let you do it.@DaveK said:
That's what the all say when they want to launch a pop-up when you close their site.
Launching a pop-up is obviously disruptive. I'm not buying your slippery slope bullshit.
-
-
@DaveK said:
My point is not about how long it takes to load the next page; my point is about trespass to chattels.
Please don't say that. Now we have to debate the morality of ad-blockers again. This is exactly the same: either you accept the cost of visiting a web-site as set by the provider of that site - which may be banner advertising, or simply pixel tracking for analytics - or you don't. If someone ask you to run such-and-such a distributed processing client all night in order to access their content, the you need to run the client as they ask, not stop processing the second you leave their page.
-
@fterfi secure said:
@DaveK said:
My point is not about how long it takes to load the next page; my point is about trespass to chattels.
Please don't say that. Now we have to debate the morality of ad-blockers again. This is exactly the same: either you accept the cost of visiting a web-site as set by the provider of that site - which may be banner advertising, or simply pixel tracking for analytics - or you don't. If someone ask you to run such-and-such a distributed processing client all night in order to access their content, the you need to run the client as they ask, not stop processing the second you leave their page.You seem confused between client-side and server-side code. On the server, you are the one making decisions, and your code does what you want it to. On the client, your passing along the code to an unknown browser (in that you can't know everything about a single browser, let alone everything about them all), and it will most likely have quirks that you don't know about.
The thing is, most people, once aware of the situation, will choose not to take the page as-is. This is why plugins for blocking ads and Javascript exist, and why browsers allow users to alter things like fonts (and even the CSS itself in some browsers).
Of course, I may have gotten the gist of your comment wrong. DaveK wasn't suggesting we debate the morality of anything, he was just saying that it is the current situation; morals have nothing to do with it.
-
@dhromed said:
FTFY.@DaveK said:
late reply owing to crunch-time
Must've been a big ass-bowl of cornflakes.
-
-
@fterfi secure said:
@DaveK said:
Reading comprehension fail. This has absolutely nothing to do with ad-blocking. Please re-read: @DaveK said:My point is not about how long it takes to load the next page; my point is about trespass to chattels.
Please don't say that. Now we have to debate the morality of ad-blockers again.the point of closing connections during UNLOAD is NOT so the browser can get on with loading the new page as quickly as possible. . . . . . When I navigate to your page in my browser, I'm granting implied permission for you to run your code on my computer. That implied permission is withdrawn by the act of navigating away; the *moment* I click away, your code no longer has permission to run on my machine and it's entirely appropriate for the browser not to run it, because that's what intention *I* have indicated to *my* browser by doing so.
@fterfi secure said:either you accept the cost of visiting a web-site as set by the provider of that site - which may be banner advertising, or simply pixel tracking for analytics - or you don't.
Wrong. Again, this has nothing to do with ad-blocking. I have my browser configured so that it changes the content displayed by websites to suit my personal preferences -- font type, font size, etc My computer, my browser. I decide what gets displayed. That means changing fonts, changing colors, turning off Javascript, or whatever. So if you're going to tell me that I'm somehow doing something "immoral" I'm going to tell you that you are full of shit. My computer, my browser, I'll do what I want. Get over it already.
-
@DaveK said:
You don't have to say something explicitly to imply it, you know. In this case, it is implied by the fact that you are complaining about the browser stopping what it's doing and going somewhere else that you don't want it to stop what it's doing and go somewhere else.
Jesus, as I've said what seems like a billion times, the browser doesn't have to stop what it's doing to send the pixels.
Computers can do more than one thing at a time. Why do I have to explain this on a programming discussion board to a programmer? Is this really such a shocking revelation? Are you just looking up from your jerry-rigged TCP/IP Commodore-64 going, "wait, multitask?" Jesus fucking Christ man. How are you even IN this industry if you don't understand that?
Look, you can't keep going on with the "browser should stop with its doing" bullshit until you at least acknowledge my point that the browser can stop all the events from the previous page, load the next page, and load my pixel. There's nothing technical preventing that from happening. Acknowledged?
Shit. Is there a forum where I can debate with people who have actually used computers before, and are aware of what computers are capable of doing?
@DaveK said:
Ah, now I get to throw the straw man accusation at you. Look back at that quote of yours that I was replying to. You said
@blakeyrat said:
The point of closing connections during UNLOAD is so the browser can get on with loading the new page as quickly as possible
remember? And I said that I disagree; the point of closing connections during UNLOAD is NOT so the browser can get on with loading the new page as quickly as possible. It is because it is not your browser and therefore it is getting on with what the user wants it to do, not what you want it to do.Those two things are not mutually-exclusive! The browser can do both what I want and what the user wants simultaneously. Why is this even a point of debate?!
@DaveK said:
So thanks for explaining the basics of multitasking and asynchronous I/O to me,
It obviously didn't sink in.
@DaveK said:
my point is about trespass to chattels.
... what?
@DaveK said:
Regardless whether it delays the next page load or not, running your request still takes up my cpu cycles, my electricity and my bandwidth.
OMG and your OS will run code to update the cursor position even if you haven't touched the mouse! Better call the CPU and electricity police, my friend! Obviously computers should have a button you press to tell it you moved the mouse, because you wouldn't want to waste all that CPU and electricity checking for a mouse move all the time!
Get a sense of perspective.
@DaveK said:
When I navigate to your page in my browser, I'm granting implied permission for you to run your code on my computer. That implied permission is withdrawn by the act of navigating away; the moment I click away, your code no longer has permission to run on my machine and it's entirely appropriate for the browser not to run it, because that's what intention I have indicated to my browser by doing so.
So what you're saying here is it's not ok for me to load 1k worth of data as the browser is unloading, but anything that happens before it unloads is fair game? So if I write a JavaScript that runs in a tight loop and keeps initiating downloads of 5 MB image files, that's ok with you? After all, you "granted me implied permission" to do it, right?
FYI, this board parses HTML for bold and italics. The asterisk thing just makes you look like a total chattel. (Am I using that made-up-ass word right?)
@DaveK said:
A lack of interest that I claim is entirely justified by one of the design requirements of the browser software: do what the user wants, not what someone else wants.
I would argue that I (the guy providing it JavaScript) am as much a user of the browser as you (the guy looking at the website) are.
In any case, we're back to, "it's not mutually-exclusive, dickweed." If the browser can make you and me happy, why shouldn't it?
@DaveK said:
No it isn't. You also have the alternative of just sucking it up.
And get killed by competitors who 1) will delay the unload, regardless of what I do, 2) will probably do it in a much more ham-fisted fashion, based on looking at the "quality" of their JavaScript.
You also have to remember that sending a pixel during unload has always been the default action. All browsers were just fine with it until the last few years. Nothing in the W3C specs say you should block them. Oh wait we get to that in your next retarded point...
@DaveK said:
That's your code that is causing the harm there, by artificially delaying the new page load in pursuit of your undesirable goal.
What do you think the definition of the word "undesirable" is? I've said a dozen times that I don't want (a.k.a. I don't desire) to delay the page load. So I can only imagine you're working off some definition of the word "undesirable" that isn't in the dictionary...
@DaveK said:
Also, isn't TRWTF that you're attempting to use this non-standard extension for an entirely undocumented and unsupported purpose?
What "extension"? What are you talking about?
As I said before, it's "undocumented" because the W3C didn't dedicate one millisecond of thought to the needs of analytics software. As for unsupported, as I said above, that's a very recent development.
As for "purpose"...
1) You're complaining that I'm using a handler who's PURPOSE is to interrupt UNLOAD with a giant-ass dialog box that says, "HEY YOU DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO LEAVE MY SITE DIDJA? PLEASE SAY NO OMG I WANT YOU TO STAY SOOOO BAD" and using it to silently and swiftly send a single pixel load is a bad thing? That my pixel load is somehow more disruptive than the dialog? You're an idiot.
2) The "purpose" of a piece of software is out of your hands the instant you release it to the public. I don't think it was the "purpose" of Excel to be used for creating Pac-Man, yet somebody's done exactly that.
I'd even go a step further and say the purpose of a piece of software is defined by what people use it for. That's how Excel beat 1-2-3 in the first place... Microsoft realized that more people were using Excel to make lists of things (like inventories) than they were using it to crunch accounting spreadsheets, so they added in features that aided in making lists (such as auto-fill) that the developers of 1-2-3 who blithely assumed it was only being used for crunching accounting spreadsheets didn't even imagine.
@DaveK said:
Yeah, and they all seem to cope somehow.
They all either don't do "last-event-on-page" tracking, or do the exact same thing I'm doing. So yes, they all seem to cope somehow.
-
BTW, here's an quick example of the type of retardedness browser developers have towards web analytics.
You know that "Do Not Track" (hereafter: DNT) setting that Mozilla created and a few other browsers have adopted? Great idea. People can give us their preference before we do anything, saving both their time (they don't have to find our usually-hard-to-find opt-out page) and saving us from junk data we probably didn't want anyway.
You know how it's implemented? Hint: in the stupidest possible way.
It's implemented as a HTTP header. Only. There's no way for my JavaScript to query the browser and say, "hey, does this browser have DNT turned on?" Instead, I just have to send out the tracking pixels anyway, even though the DNT header guarantees they'll be ignored by the back-end.
This also means that the whole "delay unload" thing we're debating here? Even for people with DNT turned on, we still have to delay the browser. So the DNT setting which you think would be the perfect solution to people like DaveK's complaints don't help in this situation at all. And, as currently implemented, can't possibly help.
They developed this "brilliant" design right around the time they went fucking crazy and decided to release a new version of Mozilla every week, so...
-
@DaveK said:
Regardless whether it delays the next page load or not, running your request still takes up my cpu cycles, my electricity and my bandwidth.
Yea, this is ridiculous. His pixel request will not delay any other process by a human-noticeable amount of time, nor will it add a penny to your electricity or internet bills. Unless you're paying $10,000 / MB for internet.
@DaveK said:
A lack of interest that I claim is entirely justified by one of the design requirements of the browser software: do what the user wants, not what someone else wants.
This is dumb, too. Browsers also have to do what the website wants, what the server wants, what the programmers and owners of the website want. The owners of this website want Blakeyrat's company to provide them with analytics information which necessitates this delay workaround.
I think you and Blakeyrat are unknowingly on the same side of this issue.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@fterfi secure said:
@DaveK said:
Reading comprehension fail. This has absolutely nothing to do with ad-blocking. Please re-read: @DaveK said:My point is not about how long it takes to load the next page; my point is about trespass to chattels.
Please don't say that. Now we have to debate the morality of ad-blockers again.the point of closing connections during UNLOAD is
@fterfi secure said:
NOT so the browser can get on with loading the new page as quickly as
possible. . . . . . When I navigate to your page in my browser, I'm
granting implied permission for you to run your code on my computer.
That implied permission is withdrawn by the act of navigating away; the
moment I click away, your code no longer has permission to run on my
machine and it's entirely appropriate for the browser not to run it,
because that's what intention I have indicated to my browser by
doing so.either you accept the cost of visiting a web-site as set by the provider of that site - which may be banner advertising, or simply pixel tracking for analytics - or you don't.
Wrong. Again, this has nothing to do with ad-blocking. I have my browser configured so that it changes the content displayed by
websites to suit my personal preferences -- font type, font size, etc My computer, my browser. I decide what gets displayed. That means changing fonts, changing colors, turning off Javascript, or whatever. So if you're going to tell me that I'm somehow doing something "immoral" I'm going to tell you that you are full of shit. My computer, my browser, I'll do what I want. Get over it already.Um, this is exactly the same thing as ad-blocking. It's the whole "my computer, my browser, I don't have to show your ads/accept your tracking pixels". It's the same issues of giving value back to the content creator in return for taking the value of the content. Nobody's saying you shouldn't be able to modify the font/color/whatever to make the browsing experience more suitable for you. However, when you block ads you are being a douche. And when you expect to get content for free by violating the social contract and expecting something minor like analytics (seriously, are you people complaining about the fucking electricity used to send a pixel??? Instead of the millionth of a cent spent on sending a pixel maybe you should consider the thousands and thousands of dollars spent creating the content and sending it to your unethical, slack-jawed, shiftless ass) to be ignored simply because "WAAAH, it's MY COMPUTER" then you are also a douche.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Um, this is exactly the same thing as ad-blocking. It's the whole "my computer, my browser, I don't have to show your ads/accept your tracking pixels". It's the same issues of giving value back to the content creator in return for taking the value of the content. Nobody's saying you shouldn't be able to modify the font/color/whatever to make the browsing experience more suitable for you. However, when you block ads you are being a douche. And when you expect to get content for free by violating the social contract and expecting something minor like analytics (seriously, are you people complaining about the fucking electricity used to send a pixel??? Instead of the millionth of a cent spent on sending a pixel maybe you should consider the thousands and thousands of dollars spent creating the content and sending it to your unethical, slack-jawed, shiftless ass) to be ignored simply because "WAAAH, it's MY COMPUTER" then you are also a douche.
This got me thinking:
Corollary to Blakeyrat's Law: Any time anyone mentions doing anything with a browser some neo-Luddite dipshits will start complaining about the fact that content providers actually expect certain behavior from their consumers. After all, it's THEIR computer and NOBODY is gonna tell THEM what to do, especially not some bullshit authority figure who acts just like their dad. This will devolve into said dipshits whining about such-and-such website doesn't work with all Javascript blocked and how every site creator should create alternative versions of their sites suitable for Lynx users who aren't going to view the ads anyway and who wouldn't click them if they could because they don't have any money leftover from their job cleaning toilets at the Crab House once they've bought PBR and whippets.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Corollary to Blakeyrat's Law: Any time anyone mentions doing anything with a browser some neo-Luddite dipshits will start complaining about the fact that content providers actually expect certain behavior from their consumers. After all, it's THEIR computer and NOBODY is gonna tell THEM what to do, especially not some bullshit authority figure who acts just like their dad. This will devolve into said dipshits whining about such-and-such website doesn't work with all Javascript blocked and how every site creator should create alternative versions of their sites suitable for Lynx users who aren't going to view the ads anyway and who wouldn't click them if they could because they don't have any money leftover from their job cleaning toilets at the Crab House once they've bought PBR and whippets.
Lacks a certain pizzazz.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Corollary to Blakeyrat's Law: Any time anyone mentions doing anything with a browser some neo-Luddite dipshits will start complaining about the fact that content providers actually expect certain behavior from their consumers. After all, it's THEIR computer and NOBODY is gonna tell THEM what to do, especially not some bullshit authority figure who acts just like their dad. This will devolve into said dipshits whining about such-and-such website doesn't work with all Javascript blocked and how every site creator should create alternative versions of their sites suitable for Lynx users who aren't going to view the ads anyway and who wouldn't click them if they could because they don't have any money leftover from their job cleaning toilets at the Crab House once they've bought PBR and whippets.
Lacks a certain pizzazz.
You shut the fuck up.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Corollary to Blakeyrat's Law: Any time anyone mentions doing anything with a browser some neo-Luddite dipshits will start complaining about the fact that content providers actually expect certain behavior from their consumers. After all, it's THEIR computer and NOBODY is gonna tell THEM what to do, especially not some bullshit authority figure who acts just like their dad. This will devolve into said dipshits whining about such-and-such website doesn't work with all Javascript blocked and how every site creator should create alternative versions of their sites suitable for Lynx users who aren't going to view the ads anyway and who wouldn't click them if they could because they don't have any money leftover from their job cleaning toilets at the Crab House once they've bought PBR and whippets.
Lacks a certain pizzazz.
You shut the fuck up.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@El_Heffe said:
@fterfi secure said:
@DaveK said:
Reading comprehension fail. This has absolutely nothing to do with ad-blocking. Please re-read: @DaveK said:My point is not about how long it takes to load the next page; my point is about trespass to chattels.
Please don't say that. Now we have to debate the morality of ad-blockers again.the point of closing connections during UNLOAD is NOT so the browser can get on with loading the new page as quickly as possible. . . . . . When I navigate to your page in my browser, I'm granting implied permission for you to run your code on my computer. That implied permission is withdrawn by the act of navigating away; the *moment* I click away, your code no longer has permission to run on my machine and it's entirely appropriate for the browser not to run it, because that's what intention *I* have indicated to *my* browser by doing so.
@fterfi secure said:either you accept the cost of visiting a web-site as set by the provider of that site - which may be banner advertising, or simply pixel tracking for analytics - or you don't.
Wrong. Again, this has nothing to do with ad-blocking. I have my browser configured so that it changes the content displayed by websites to suit my personal preferences -- font type, font size, etc My computer, my browser. I decide what gets displayed. That means changing fonts, changing colors, turning off Javascript, or whatever. So if you're going to tell me that I'm somehow doing something "immoral" I'm going to tell you that you are full of shit. My computer, my browser, I'll do what I want. Get over it already.Um, this is exactly the same thing as ad-blocking. It's the whole "my computer, my browser, I don't have to show your ads/accept your tracking pixels". It's the same issues of giving value back to the content creator in return for taking the value of the content. Nobody's saying you shouldn't be able to modify the font/color/whatever to make the browsing experience more suitable for you. However, when you block ads you are being a douche. And when you expect to get content for free by violating the social contract and expecting something minor like analytics (seriously, are you people complaining about the fucking electricity used to send a pixel??? Instead of the millionth of a cent spent on sending a pixel maybe you should consider the thousands and thousands of dollars spent creating the content and sending it to your unethical, slack-jawed, shiftless ass) to be ignored simply because "WAAAH, it's MY COMPUTER" then you are also a douche.
You're still implying that people are acting imorally when we set limits on our browsers and only allow content we want. There's nothign of the sort and you're a douche for suggesting it is.
This whole argument is about loading in a single pixel, but how is that being done? What's to stop a content creator (I'm not actually suggesting Blakey is actually going to do this) from performing some other action instead? The whole point of blocking the action entirely is to stop the harmful behaviours. Sure, it's a bit of a hammer/nail approach, but it works, and for most people the benefits outweigh the problems caused by this approach.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@DaveK said:
No it isn't. You also have the alternative of just sucking it up.
And get killed by competitors who 1) will delay the unload, regardless of what I do, 2) will probably do it in a much more ham-fisted fashion, based on looking at the "quality" of their JavaScript.3 words. Suck. It. Up.
If you're going to get killed by competitors then it's only because you aren't doing what they can do. If they are able to work around the limitations of the browser, then so can you. If they do it in a ham-fisted fashion, so what? They have to pay the bills at the end of the month too you know, you think they will stop just because poor blakeyrat can't work around the limitations of a browser the way they can?
This thread more than any other has really made you come across as a whiny, stupid child. When people tried to offer help, you not only shot them down but did so in such a shitty way, it got peoples backs up. Sure, you may not have agreed with their advice, and with your arrogance you probably thought that any suggestion wouldn't help you at all. Then, when people start to do the same thing to you, point out your mistakes and your failings, you take umbrage and complain that we're all bullying you. Are you fucking kidding me? Don't be so damn stupid.
-
@ASheridan said:
If they do it in a ham-fisted fashion, so what?
Therein lies the problem that plagues mankind.
-
I'm not saying I would code in a ham-fisted fashion, but if that's the only route available and I have to get the job done, then I will have to do it, however much I dislike it. It's a fact of life that there will be many times we are tasked with something that is ridiculous and stupid, but we just have to do it anyway to make whoever is paying us happy.
-
@ASheridan said:
if that's the only route available and I have to get the job done, then I will have to do it, however much I dislike it.
Sure, in the hypothetical situation IF it's the only route, THEN it's inevitable to use a ham-fisted approach. But given reality, I can't quite discern from your words, nor from the actions of others, that those other routes have always been adequately explored.
-
@ASheridan said:
If they do it in a ham-fisted fashion, so what?
The problem here is that he wants to make a better quality product, is that so hard to understand? BTW, as far as we know, his product does work, except on iOS devices... Well, a month has almost passed from the first post so he may have been able to deal with that in the meantime. And what's more, the WTF is still that there are no proper JS debugging tools on iOS devices, indipendently from the reason why Blakey even needs them.
-
@dhromed said:
@ASheridan said:
if that's the only route available and I have to get the job done, then I will have to do it, however much I dislike it.
Sure, in the hypothetical situation IF it's the only route, THEN it's inevitable to use a ham-fisted approach. But given reality, I can't quite discern from your words, nor from the actions of others, that those other routes have always been adequately explored.
Developers do explore the other routes, but I agree with you that it doesn't happen as often as it should. Most often it's because someone doesn't know that alternative routes exist, sometimes it's laziness.
-
@ASheridan said:
If you're going to get killed by competitors then it's only because you aren't doing what they can do.
Sigh. The point I was making is that half the morons in this thread seem to think I should just give up on this feature and not do it at all. I was informing them that, even had they convinced me to drop the features, I have competitors who would do the exact same thing, so the net benefit (to me and them) would be zero.
@ASheridan said:
If they are able to work around the limitations of the browser, then so can you.
They do it the exact same way I do, if they bother at all. We've already covered this material, several times.
@ASheridan said:
If they do it in a ham-fisted fashion, so what? They have to pay the bills at the end of the month too you know, you think they will stop just because poor blakeyrat can't work around the limitations of a browser the way they can?
What the... are you an idiot?
@ASheridan said:
When people tried to offer help, you not only shot them down but did so in such a shitty way, it got peoples backs up.
There was exactly one useful suggestion I hadn't already tried myself, and hadn't been discussed in the previous thread full of useful suggestions. It turns out XMLHttpRequest applies XSS rules even to HEAD requests, so the suggestion didn't work.
@ASheridan said:
Sure, you may not have agreed with their advice, and with your arrogance you probably thought that any suggestion wouldn't help you at all.
All of the suggestions, except for that one, were discussed in the previous thread. Which I linked to. And in which I gave reasons why I had already tried and dismissed them.
@ASheridan said:
Don't be so damn stupid.
You first.
-
@dargor17 said:
BTW, as far as we know, his product does work, except on iOS devices... Well, a month has almost passed from the first post so he may have been able to deal with that in the meantime.
It's not perfect, but I have the percentage up to a "good enough" level. We just have to advise clients to keep tracking on a bit longer if they're interested in iOS, so we have more time to reach statistical significance.
@dargor17 said:
And what's more, the WTF is still that there are no proper JS debugging tools on iOS devices, indipendently from the reason why Blakey even needs them.
Yup.
-
Well, I must have touched a nerve if you're going through the whole thread to nitpick only at me.
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan said:
If you're going to get killed by competitors then it's only because you aren't doing what they can do.
Sigh. The point I was making is that half the morons in this thread seem to think I should just give up on this feature and not do it at all. I was informing them that, even had they convinced me to drop the features, I have competitors who would do the exact same thing, so the net benefit (to me and them) would be zero.
I wasn't suggesting you drop the feature. If you're going to pick on my comments from the whole thread rather than from a single post, then pick on what I said and don't bring other peoples arguments into it as if I was making the same points. If you've got competitors who would/have implement(ed) the feature then there is a solution to be found. If you spent more time working than you did on here you might have found it by now.
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan said:
If they do it in the same way, then surely the missing feature for iOS users isn't a problem because you've got nothign to compete against? If however you're just guessing that they do it the same way and you're really only jsut talking out of your arse, then there is a solution that works for iOS. Which is it?If they are able to work around the limitations of the browser, then so can you.
They do it the exact same way I do, if they bother at all. We've already covered this material, several times.
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan said:
You said that they'd delay the unload regardless of what you do, as an excuse about why you can't just 'suck it up' (which I presume you took to mean that you shouldn't implement the feature for iOS). Again, you're saying that other companies have figured this out, so there is a solution, you just need to find it, and you're unlikely to find help when all you do is bash people and antagonise them.If they do it in a ham-fisted fashion, so what? They have to pay the bills at the end of the month too you know, you think they will stop just because poor blakeyrat can't work around the limitations of a browser the way they can?
What the... are you an idiot?
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan said:
And only receiving what you deem as one useful suggestion is a good reason to tell everyone that they're all fucking stupid is it?When people tried to offer help, you not only shot them down but did so in such a shitty way, it got peoples backs up.
There was exactly one useful suggestion I hadn't already tried myself, and hadn't been discussed in the previous thread full of useful suggestions. It turns out XMLHttpRequest applies XSS rules even to HEAD requests, so the suggestion didn't work.
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan said:
You linked to the other thread after many suggetions and after you told everyone they were fucking stupid. You expected people to have read the thread before you posted the link to it. So my points on your arrogance still stand.Sure, you may not have agreed with their advice, and with your arrogance you probably thought that any suggestion wouldn't help you at all.
All of the suggestions, except for that one, were discussed in the previous thread. Which I linked to. And in which I gave reasons why I had already tried and dismissed them.
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan said:
The evidence suggests you're a total dumbass.Don't be so damn stupid.
You first.
-
@ASheridan said:
@blakeyrat said:
Well if Blakey can't do his job, and resorts to asking for solutions on here, how are the rest of us supposed to be brainy enough to do it for him....?@ASheridan said:
And only receiving what you deem as one useful suggestion is a good reason to tell everyone that they're all fucking stupid is it?When people tried to offer help, you not only shot them down but did so in such a shitty way, it got peoples backs up.
There was exactly one useful suggestion I hadn't already tried myself, and hadn't been discussed in the previous thread full of useful suggestions. It turns out XMLHttpRequest applies XSS rules even to HEAD requests, so the suggestion didn't work.
-
Thread summary:
- Conversation 1
Blakeyrat: Guys, iOS devices don't have a Javascript debugger.
DailyWTF: That sucks.
Blakeyrat: It sucks because I need it to figure out why X doesn't work.
DailyWTF: X doesn't work? Have you tried doing Y?
Blakeyrat: I have in fact tried Y and it did not work.
DailyWTF: What about Z?
Blakeyrat: Z didn't work either, but I didn't create this thread for the purpose of suggestions.
DailyWTF: Surely you haven't tried W yet.
Blakeyrat: I have tried the entire alphabet of things, all of which did not work. The things you suggest in the future also will not work. There is only one way to do what I want to do, which is X, and X is not working on iOS for some reason. Hence why I need a Javascript debugger.
DailyWTF: Well, you're an idiot for rejecting all our suggestions without even trying them. Also you're a meany head.
- Conversation 2
DailyWTF: X is dumb. Can't you do what you want to do some other way?
Blakeyrat: I agree that X is dumb. However, there is no other way.
DailyWTF: There must be some other way, because X, as previously mentioned, is dumb. What about Q?
Blakeyrat: Here is a myriad of reasons why X is the only way to do what I want to do.
DailyWTF: Why do you want to do X? Isn't there another way?
Blakeyrat: X is the only way to do it. I realize that X is dumb and slightly annoys the user. But there is no other way.
DailyWTF: We've suggested lots of other ways and you just shot them down! I don't understand why you're clinging to X.
-
@ASheridan said:
You're still implying that people are acting imorally when we set limits on our browsers and only allow content we want. There's nothign of the sort and you're a douche for suggesting it is.
Um, that's exactly what people are doing. When you block ads/tracking pixels you are stealing content. Just because it's on the honor system doesn't mean it's not immoral, you stupid, worthless fuck.
@ASheridan said:
This whole argument is about loading in a single pixel, but how is that being done? What's to stop a content creator (I'm not actually suggesting Blakey is actually going to do this) from performing some other action instead? The whole point of blocking the action entirely is to stop the harmful behaviours. Sure, it's a bit of a hammer/nail approach, but it works, and for most people the benefits outweigh the problems caused by this approach.
It's not hammer/nail, it's baby/bathwater, jackass. The entire point is that no good way exists to do the web analytics Blakey wants so he has to work around the problem. Admittedly, his workaround sucks but it's because browser vendors don't provide any better way to do it. If such a way existed, I'm sure he would use it.
Could it be abused? Sure, any technology can be abused. Javascript can do a fuckload more abuse than a simple "fire off a pixel to this URL on page unload" handler could ever do. However, non-idiots realize that to actually use the web you need Javascript.
The fact is if you block ads you are stealing. Deal with it. Stop pretending you're some kind of principled, intelligent human being and not the thief you are.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@ASheridan said:
Oh for fucks' sakes, I was honestly trying to head this discussion off. We all know what the two views are, whether we agree with either, neither, or both. Do we really have to rehash this again?You're still implying that people are acting imorally when we set limits on our browsers and only allow content we want. There's nothign of the sort and you're a douche for suggesting it is.
Um, that's exactly what people are doing. When you block ads/tracking pixels you are stealing content. Just because it's on the honor system doesn't mean it's not immoral, you stupid, worthless fuck.
Where's Blakey or Bridget or Nagesh, or one of the other trolls, when you need them?
-
@fterfi secure said:
Oh for fucks' sakes, I was honestly trying to head this discussion off. We all know what the two views are, whether we agree with either, neither, or both. Do we really have to rehash this again?
No. I actually prefer the zero-indexing versus one-indexing debate more. I'll start:
Zero-indexing is a retarded, counterintuitive relic from a bygone era.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Zero-indexing is a retarded, counterintuitive relic from the current era.
OITFY.
-
@fterfi secure said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Zero-indexing is a retarded, counterintuitive relic from the current era.
OITFY.I hereby propose we index arrays based on the names of animals at the local zoo, in alphabetical order. For example, to access the first element in an array you'd simply do:
arr[aardvark] = foo;
If your local zoo doesn't have aardvarks, your IDE can change all of the aardvark symbols to anteater symbols or antelope symbols!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
you stupid, worthless fuck.
Look, I'm sorry I forgot the lube last night. I know it chafes a little, but don't take it out on the users.
-
@dhromed said:
@morbiuswilters said:
you stupid, worthless fuck.
Look, I'm sorry I forgot the lube last night. I know it chafes a little, but don't take it out on the users.
The worst part is that I know you have a few 55 gallon drums! D:
-
@morbiuswilters said:
If your local zoo doesn't have aardvarks
@Tim Vine said:So I rang up my local swimming baths. I said 'Is that the local swimming baths?' He said 'It depends where you're calling from.'
