Nelek wrote:
then do not complain if someone understands it in another way as "expected / intended"
No, the English language if loaded with nuances. What would be the purpose or logic that determines why the same exact language in text form should be treated any differently? If language and grammar are so important to you today, go spend the day at the public library. Leave it alone already.
Rage wrote:
I had the same thought about MSOffice lately. Some things shall not run in a web browser - the name says it all : it is made for browsing. Period.
That's one of the most beautiful things I have ever read in my life. You are a light of hope in an otherwise dismally bleak void of infinite darkness. Web pages and web apps belong in browser windows; industry-standard photo editing software belongs on the OS desktop. In no way can a web browser function to accommodate such complex and performance-demanding software. Perhaps one day in the future that may be different, but current web browsers? No. It's absurd. It's been hours, and I still haven't been able to figure out what the benefit of running Photoshop inside a web browser could possibly be. We don't put toaster ovens inside washing machines. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that one out. :wtf: I'll be back on a bit later. I need to go drive my car into my swimming pool. Then, I need to gather firewood so I can light a fire inside my refrigerator. After I do that I need to swallow a bar of soap. It's going to be a busy day. Oh, no! I forgot to put my chainsaw in my mailbox. How could I forget to do something so important?
The first thought that comes to mind upon reading this thread is... why? Photoshop runs faster as a desktop application than it ever could through a web browser. What about memory resources? Modern web browsers are memory hogs. Running Photoshop as a desktop application ties up a ridiculous amount of memory to begin with. Google Chrome is already a memory hog. To run such a resource-intensive application such as Photoshop on top of a web browser like Chrome sounds absolutely ridiculous. It's like strapping a camel onto the back of a donkey. I assume that Photoshop's scratch disks reside in the cloud. If Adobe uses something like SDD drives w/ data transfer speeds as fast as 3000 MB/s over a 300 Gbps network, that may be sufficient for most scenarios, but what if you want to run Photoshop batch actions for a couple thousand 100 MB bitmaps? Even with such fast data transfer speeds, it sounds ridiculous. Think of the load that it puts on the processing speed of the client machine. Would you even be able to run the aforementioned Photoshop batch actions without bringing the system's processing speed down to a crawl? I don't know. Maybe, but it sounds ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if it crashed Notepad under such demands. Maybe it's something you could do, but as I said before, why? I forget what the data transfer speeds are for my home network, but I'd imagine that's where the bottleneck would occur. Even if it were practical in terms of data speed and processing power, what about the shortcomings of the web browser itself? What a nightmare. HTML5 may provide a plethora of tools to work with and most of the standards for major web browsers are fairly consistent, but what kind of nutcases embark upon such a terror-inducing journey of digital torture? I know that if I were a front-end developer at Adobe, and was assigned to this project, I'd immediately leap out of my chair, sprint toward the nearest window, and smash right through it in a desperate attempt to escape. Then I'd run as fast as I could until reaching the nearest road and jump in front of a speeding bus.
I'm certainly disappointed to know that. I guess I'll just have to make the best of it and move on. On the bright side, I sure am glad that I'm not an arrogant moron. That's even worse than being a cocky dolt. I feel so grateful for the fact that I'm not a megalomaniac invalid. It doesn't get any worse than that.
Nelek wrote:
not to say about humor... that can already be really different from person to person WITHIN the same country...
Oh yes, agreed.
David O'Neil wrote:
conclusion
I'm not so sure that conclusion is the correct term. I'd say it's more of an unfounded assertion.
David O'Neil wrote:
Responses like that reinforce the conclusion. A "thank you for your input" and then shut up would have been a far better response. Best wishes, David
Yeah, I don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye on this one.
Nelek wrote:
Since in written language you are missing 90% of the information (paraverbal and non verbal).
Yes, I wish more people knew that. I wish those of us who already do know it would be more mindful when communicating via text. In terms of what you refer to as textual signs, can you explain a little bit more? Is the term "textual sign" an umbrella term for things such as emoticons, abbreviations, and acronyms? There are many cases in which I intentionally omit things like emoticons from messages that I send because my intention is often to convey some ambiguity. If done properly, it can do a lot to enhance the humor of a joke. It's the exact equivalent of how a verbal joke uses perplexity, engagement, and anticipation to greatly enhance the punchline's humor. Emoticons and other symbols can also be detrimental in text-based communication because they can interrupt the flow and disrupt the timing of a joke. Without proper flow and correct timing, a joke will fall flat losing all of its humor.
Nelek wrote:
You now made me curious... are you from the U.S.A. as your profile says? Or do you come from somewhere else? (where?)
I was born in the U.S.A., but I've also spent around 5 years in Canada, a year in England, and I estimate that I've been to Mexico at least 300 times, but most of those visits were day trips. From my own experience, I can say with confidence that different countries have completely different views on what is seen to be funny. I'm sure if you search Google, you will find information on a worldwide case study that was performed to determine the extent to which this phenomenon exists. I was surprised to see that there's such a significant difference between countries when it comes to what is deemed funny, vs. not funny.
Nelek wrote:
you still have enough ways to show "your intentions" in text if you are an experienced internet user (what I presuppose you are), and you missed all / didn't use any of them.
So, because you failed to comprehend the humor, that makes it my fault for not following your guidelines?
Nelek wrote:
If you want to make jokes, or sarcastic comments... use the textual signs to compensate the missin paraverbal and non verbal information.
...And it's my fault that you didn't pick up on the humor? Since when is it my responsibility to provide you with textual signs to compensate for your inability to properly comprehend what is being said?
David O'Neil wrote:
If you continue in this way, you are going to be viewed as a pompous idiot.
If that's how someone prefers to see me, that's fine. Has anyone ever had a conversation with me? Has anyone met me in person? How much can you know about a person based on a fraction of 400 forum posts that I've posted in an Internet forum? What percentage of my posts convey that I am a pompous idiot? Perhaps less than a dozen. Do a dozen stupid posts negate every other quality post I've made? With such a minuscule amount of information to go on, do you really believe that an informed, rational, and accurate assessment of who I am can be determined by anyone? Of course not. For someone to jump to such conclusions would require a great deal of imagination and baseless assumptions. That level of faulty thinking borders on delusion with a complete absence of critical thinking. I find it to be ironic. That's the purest demonstration of what a pompous idiot truly is. And for me to care about what such a person thinks about me? I care more about what an insect thinks about me than I ever could about someone so profoundly foolish. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be hilarious. Yet for a human being to conjure up such an absurd idea? Well, that's truly sad.
David O'Neil wrote:
First you were pushing us to help Dave, by reviewing his book, and even created a dedicated thread in order to do so.
Yes. In what way does that disprove that I was NOT playing with Dave?
David O'Neil wrote:
Then you say you were playing with him.
That makes perfect sense, I was playing with Dave. You need not point out the obvious.
David O'Neil wrote:
Now you say that you have years of experience in advertising campaigns for 'the biggest companies!'
What evidence can you present that proves my statement to be false?
David O'Neil wrote:
But you didn't recognize his post as the advertisement it seems to be.
I didn't? OK, once again... provide me with inarguable evidence that proves you know what thoughts were going through my mind.
David O'Neil wrote:
And now you are apologizing to Dave in another thread.
Yes, I am indeed an awful and vindictive sociopath. Posting a public apology is certainly
David O'Neil wrote:
First you were pushing us to help Dave, by reviewing his book, and even created a dedicated thread in order to do so. Then you say you were playing with him. Now you say that you have years of experience in advertising campaigns for 'the biggest companies!' But you didn't recognize his post as the advertisement it seems to be. And now you are apologizing to Dave in another thread. It is hard to take you seriously after these actions. It is incredibly difficult to believe that you are not Dave, even though you refute the idea.
LOL,
I believe that I owe you a sincere apology, Dave (@DavesApps). I'm sorry for any trouble or grief that I may have caused you. Upon reading your post about requesting book reviews, I mistook you for a spammer. I know now that you are a genuine member of this forum, and I realize that your post was intended to be an honest effort to collect book reviews. I want to be clear in telling you that you didn't deserve my mockery. In addition, I'd like to apologize to my community as well. I misunderstood the situation and the details thereof. I'm sorry to those of you whom I mistakenly gave the wrong impression. It was never my intention to be hurtful to anyone, and I never intended to make any of you feel as though you were under personal attack. My mockery was intended to be seen as humorous mockery in response to what I mistakenly believed to be the actions of a spammer. I was wrong, and I own up to my mistake. I'm sorry.
StevieWondermann wrote:
Just wanted to say that I looked and DavesApps is a real guy.
Yes, it wasn't for a while until I realized that. Initially, I got the distinct impression upon reading Dave's post, that he was a spammer who held no regard for the rules of the forum or for other people. That's what got it started. When I realized that his intentions were honest and genuine -- even though his post came across as a blatant form of spam -- I felt bad. I clarified to him that I didn't want my irreverent behavior to be inferred as a mean-spirited act toward him. Had he been an actual spammer -- a person who intends to break the rules for their own monetary self-interests at the expense of others' time and efforts -- then I do believe a fair amount of humorous ridicule is well-deserved. I'm not talking about ridicule that's intended to be cruel, hateful, and directed at someone in a personal manner. Even if we were dealing with a true spammer, my ridicule wouldn't reach the point of hateful and genuinely derogatory attacks. I find no pleasure in that whatsoever. That type of thing does nothing to help anyone in any situation.
StevieWondermann wrote:
The dozens of ranting, raving and bizarre poetry[^] posts was unnecessary.
I wouldn't say there were dozens of posts; I'd say around one dozen would be more accurate. That's not important, though. I'm sorry you didn't like my poem. As I had mentioned several times in other recent posts, poking fun at others in jest can be mistaken for derogatory and hateful intent, or anything else altogether. If someone had posted that sort of poem and it was directed toward me, I would have immediately laughed about it and I would have found appreciation in its humor. Others see it differently. It doesn't matter what you say, how you say it, or what you intend to imply. Textual communication, over the Internet, by people you don't know is entirely open to misinterpretation. It's a major part of the reason why hostility toward others over the Internet is so rampant. Miscommunication and misunderstanding that escalate into a hostile interaction happen in real life, too. Even between good friends, it happens. You can have the best communication skills in the world, and it doesn't matter. As long as you're a human being, this will happen. It doesn't matter which side of the interaction you may be on, it happens to everyone. Everyone has misspoken something in
Yes, I understand. That's well said. If Dave had communicated his request in a genuine way, and not in a way that violates the rules of this forum, it may have been OK. I too enjoy sharing with others what projects I may be working on, and people may come to the incorrect conclusion about what my intentions are in doing so. In sharing my work, there's no benefit to me in any way. If I were looking to gain something by sharing my work, then I would advertise it properly. As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm well experienced in advertising and marketing. I've managed marketing and advertising campaigns for Fortune 1000 companies with million-dollar budgets. I know how to get the word out in the proper way.
Nelek wrote:
In addition: you bringing more attention to something that could have just stayed like that, has only made it worse.
I understand. I think if Dave's post was out-of-line to the extent that it required deletion, then it would have been removed very early on. That would send the message to me that my joking around isn't appreciated.
Nelek wrote:
In addition: you bringing more attention to something that could have just stayed like that, has only made it worse. And you are getting really close to the limit of what I consider trolling. I ask you to stop, please.
Certainly. As soon as I saw that others didn't see the humor in my playing around with Dave, and the word "troll" was brought up, I discontinued everything. I apologize to anyone who may have not appreciated my playing around with poor Dave. It was all in jest, and I certainly can't expect everyone to find humor in what I'm doing. This site has members from all over the world. It's a well-establish fact that in large part, someone in country "A" will find no humor (or even find offense) in what someone from country "B" finds to be hilarious. Add on the fact that textual communication strips out 80% of all language that would be conveyed in comparison to what a face-to-face interaction provides to its participants, and that's how problems start. Hence, any attempt at humor in this environment is bound to result in friction most of the time, regardless of context. If I ever get to a point where it's more of an annoyance than an expression of humor, then I stop. That's my rule. It can be a blurred line, and once I realize that it's unwelcome behavior to others, it loses its humor to me. I'm not out to cause trouble, str
raddevus wrote:
Ah, the Clive Cussler technique... (It's obvious, you are Dave.)
LOL, no, I'm not Dave! :laugh: I've never heard of this "Clive Cluster" technique. The thing is, I have years of experience managing advertising campaigns for Fortune 1000 companies. Given my experience, I know how to gather exposure in way that is not only appropriate and ethical, but also cost-monetarily efficient. Dave didn't acquire more than a couple hundred views on his book review requests. The way in which he pitched his request indicates to me that he has minimal experience and knowledge in how to properly promote a product, or service. I don't mean this to be any sort of derogatory statement toward Dave, but I must be honest. When it comes to marketing and advertising, I don't believe Dave has much of a clue. From what I gather, he's trying to do the best he can with what he has. I hope that in the future he will make the effort to learn how to advertise in a way that is effective and ethical. I'm only playing with Dave. I have absolutely no intent of inflicting insult, grief, or harm to anyone whatsoever, including Dave vimself. If anything, I hope that Dave picked up on the fact that there are proper ways in which to advertise, and promote his work effectively. I'm amused by your insinuation, but no worries. By no means is that assumption correct in any way. I do understand how someone may come to reason that I could be Dave, but I'm not Dave. If you were to name any 12 Fortune 1000 companies, or perhaps more specifically, the top 100 companies in the list, you will most likely name one or more of my past clients. Most of my clients have million-dollar budgets, and it was my responsibility to help them make the most out of their investments. I swear, I'm not Dave, and I've never met him. I was just playing with him for laughs, nothing more. :-D
Oh Dave... Poor Dave, You are the tinfoil to my microwave. If only you knew... Someone is playing with you. I couldn't type from laughing so hard, I was no more capable than a dotard. What I find so hilarious, is that your dome is lapidarious.
Bugs and Suggestions: "Could be the problem"[^] Edit: typo fix.
Bugs and Suggestions - "Could be the problem?"^] Edit: I had to correct an unterminated string constant.
Incentivize spammers to pay money. Make it easy, convenient, and profitable. They're covering this site like ants on a molehill. Make them your customers. A high percentage of people who currently spam codeProject.com will pay you money for your time. Just make sure it's easy, convenient, and profitable. Advertise right back at them. Edit: typo fix