@newfweiler said:
Having lived through the 1960's, when "off" was a verb meaning "buttbuttinate" (as in "Off the Pig!")
What. The. Fuck.
@newfweiler said:
Having lived through the 1960's, when "off" was a verb meaning "buttbuttinate" (as in "Off the Pig!")
What. The. Fuck.
Whippersnapper.
display(toggleViewLinks, moreVisibly);
JPEG is perfectly fine with big flat areas, and compresses them really well. What JPEG has a problem with is high-frequency detail. E.g.-- text.
@joe.edwards@imaginuity.com said:
I don't remember seeing NextPage in the (X)HTML specs. Nonstandard attributes make baby Jesus cry.
Nothing in the code sample suggests that "Label2" is a DOM object. Programmers who jump to conclusions make baby Jesus cry.
@dhromed said:
Firefox 3 will have the New & Better graphics engine, currently dubbed "Cairo", which supports, among other things, image resampling and border-radius antialiasing.
For the love of god, why? Browser-scaled graphics SHOULD look bad. The last thing we need is to encourage lazy web-stupid people to waste gobs of bandwidth by relying on the browser to scale their images.
@Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over. said:
Why externally launch at all? Why not just link to the PDF and let the browser/plugin/OS settings deal with it?
When deployed on the web, that's just what it does. However, it's
also distributed on CD in "projector" (executable) form. We used to
simply put the web page on the CDs, but as of Flash Player 8, SWFs
running from the local filesystem are blocked from communicating with
their container page in any way. This made a lot of people angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea.
VB and its ilk aren't an option, because I refuse to make any
assumptions about what the end user already has installed on their
system. This product is intended for people with highly variable levels of computer literacy, so it needs to be as plug-and-play as possible.
Yes, "BAT" as in DOS batch file. Put on your propeller hats, we're going oldschool...
My job is as the back-end programmer on a team that produces computer-based training in Flash. One of the things we need to do from our courseware is view PDFs. Unfortunately, Flash in its modern incarnation has some ludicrously paranoid restrictions on its external launch functionality: You can only execute programs residing in a predefined "safe" subfolder from the main application, and it forbids passing arguments. Yikes. So to view PDFs, I have to create a unique batch file for each one of them containing essentially:
@start ..\readings\oneofmany.pdf
@exit
This works, but it's an ugly hack that flashes a command prompt on the screen for a moment every time a PDF starts up. So this is my question--
How hard would it be to create a tiny self-contained executable that examines its own filename, temporarily enables Command Extensions, and uses the built-in Start function to launch the indicated file, all without opening any intermediary windows? So for example, "mydocument.pdf.exe" would open "mydocument.pdf".
I can't imagine this being very difficult to implement, but unfortunately I don't have access to any tools that can manage even "Hello World" without a multi-megabyte run-time library. That, and I haven't touched Win32 programming in years.
Ummm... this code appears to do exactly what it claims to be doing-- test whether Java is enabled. If it was a test for Javascript, the code block would just contain an unconditional redirect.
"The Real WTF" is that you're saving what should obviously be JPGs as PNGs.
I'm just going to pretend I'm on fark.com for a moment here--
I'd hit it.
[quote user="viraptor"]
I'd say - no wtf here - at least not the described one. You supplied wrong binary for wrong source. Maybe recognising attributes involves browsing through callbacks and some were with unknown type (generics? new types?) were ignored? (blind shot)
It's situation, like checking if you can access System.String by browsing reflections of classes, but in try block, to verify, that you can access reflection, but in monitored child process to check if you can "try", but with......... You just don't do that and expect your environment to be complete.
On the other hand - not forcing source to be marked with version of .NET it's made for, is just crazy... It should be not compatible version error from the beginning.
[/quote]
Heh, cool. I haven't seen any good Dissociated Press output in a long time. Thanks!