Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #11595 > unrolled thread
| Started by | richard <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-10-27 10:58 -0400 |
| Last post | 2013-10-28 20:02 +0100 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 70 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php
checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 10:58 -0400
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-27 16:45 +0100
Re: checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 12:01 -0400
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 17:53 +0000
Re: checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 14:24 -0400
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-27 18:38 +0000
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-27 14:43 -0400
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-28 03:22 +0100
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-28 05:49 -0400
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-28 08:11 -0400
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-28 14:37 +0100
Re: checking for audio playing ??? "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-28 13:49 +0000
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-28 10:01 -0400
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-10-28 11:36 -0700
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-28 21:29 -0400
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-29 12:18 +0100
cr Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-31 23:21 -0400
Re: cr Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-03 15:29 +0100
Re: cr Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-03 09:34 -0500
Re: cr Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-11-03 15:18 -0500
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-29 20:12 +0100
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-29 20:21 +0000
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-29 20:10 +0100
server-side vs.client-side (was: checking for audio playing ???) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-29 21:45 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-29 20:54 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 03:18 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-29 22:31 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-30 09:20 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 19:04 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 14:58 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 20:54 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 16:21 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 21:55 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 17:07 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-31 09:40 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-31 23:03 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-31 20:38 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-02 17:57 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 19:36 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-02 18:44 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 00:28 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-11-02 19:01 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-02 21:40 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-01 09:53 -0700
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-01 13:53 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-01 21:10 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-01 22:25 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-01 22:29 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-01 20:37 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 01:26 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-01 18:37 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Stefan+Usenet@Froehlich.Priv.at (Stefan Froehlich) - 2013-11-01 19:19 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 01:24 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-02 17:46 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-11-02 15:41 -0400
Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-02 21:37 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-03 10:48 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-03 10:28 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-05 11:15 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-05 12:47 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-03 14:16 +0100
Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-03 16:00 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-03 14:52 -0700
Re: server-side vs.client-side Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-03 23:19 -0700
Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-04 18:02 +0000
Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-30 09:09 +0100
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 15:23 +0000
Re: checking for audio playing ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-28 16:56 +0000
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-27 18:22 +0000
Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-28 20:02 +0100
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-03 14:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: server-side vs.client-side |
| Message-ID | <2819769.4COP93GsJZ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #11711 |
Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/2/13, 12:46 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Michael Vilain wrote: >>> I've never seen javascript run on anything but a browser. >> >> Which does not mean anything. Not only is that an /argumentum ad >> ignorantiam/, a classic fallacy; but also, contrary to common >> misconception, there is not even a (single) programming language called >> “javascript”. > > Several Fallacies here: > > First, this is not "argumentum ad ignorantiam" because that fallacy is > the fallacy of assuming something is true because it has not been proven > false. It is an /argumentum ad ignorantiam/ *exactly* because of that. The premise set here implicitly is that “javascript” could only run in a browser, and the argument made to prove that is that anything else has not been observed by the person setting the premise; therefore the premise is assumed to be true. And *that* is a fallacy. > You might be able to claim a fallicy of lack of evidence does not > imply evidence of the lack, but the problem with citing that is the > claim isn't that NO use of "javascipt" is not client-side, but that the > "norm" for "javascript" is client-side, which means that any possible > server-side use, if it exist, needs to be uncommon, which IS supported > (but maybe not proved) by a lack of observation. Refutation of this > observation could be done by showing a existing usage *of common enough > usage* to negate the "normally" tag. Your logic is flawed. > There is a language called "javascript", There is not. > even your beloved ECMAScipt.org site admits this, stating in at least one > location: > > "ECMAScript" is the name under which the language more commonly known as > "JavaScript" is standardized. First, note the different spelling. Second, that is still an explanation for laymen. The only normative work, the ECMAScript Language Specification, 5.1 Edition (and previous Editions), clearly say(s): | This Ecma Standard is based on several originating technologies, the most | well known being JavaScript (Netscape) and JScript (Microsoft). > Which admits to the existence of language with the name of "javascript", No, it does not. It admits the existence of one programming language named “JavaScript” (of many others); an existence which was _not_ debated (on the contrary; if you read the ECMAScript Support Matrix carefully, you can find confirmation of its existence, past and present, numerous times). > it just isn't the name of the language that the standard applies to. Utter nonsense. > Your instance that "There is no javascript" is a denial of reality. No, your and other's use of ”javascript” is. From the standard *follows* that there is no single programming language to implement it, and certainly no language with that name. The ES Matrix also shows that there have not been and there is not one programming language, but several ones, with different names, and have been since shortly after the beginning. I have been dealing with ECMAScript-based programming languages since about 16 years now; they are the basis of my scientific work in computer science. Therefore, I strongly suggest you get yourself a lot more informed on the subject before you start discussing it with me. It would also be preferable if you discussed it where it is on-topic (comp.lang.javascript), otherwise I will have to adjust my scorefile. > The rest of your rant is similarly filled with the flaw that something > must be wrong because it doesn't match YOUR particular unusual > definition (or lack there of) even if it matches the commonly use meaning. It is not merely *my* definition. Perhaps what distinguishes the professional from the layman the most is that the professional knows that and understands why definitions cannot be arbitrarily made up if they are to make sense: they must fit into an existing framework of definitions, they must be ontological plausible. To say that a programming language ”is server-side” or “is client-side” assigns to it an *exclusive* property by predicate. It means that this programming language could *only* be used either client-side or *only* server-side. And nothing could be farther from the truth. It is the very property of programming languages to be usable in whatever architecture (to be “general- purpose” in that regard) that makes them so powerful. One must keep in mind that a programming language is a human-readable abstraction of operations that tell a machine what to do in order to achieve a human-set goal. It is only *later* that the human ascribes to a machine or program the property of being a “client” or a “server” *or* *both*, and he can do that *only* in the client-server architecture. PointedEars -- Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.) -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-03 16:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: server-side vs.client-side |
| Message-ID | <031120131600503565%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #11723 |
In article <2819769.4COP93GsJZ@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > > "ECMAScript" is the name under which the language more commonly known as > > "JavaScript" is standardized. > > First, note the different spelling. It is *not* a different spelling. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-03 14:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: server-side vs.client-side |
| Message-ID | <l56gjp$4og$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11726 |
Tim Streater wrote: > In article <2819769.4COP93GsJZ@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' > Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >> > "ECMAScript" is the name under which the language more commonly >> known as >> > "JavaScript" is standardized. >> >> First, note the different spelling. > > It is *not* a different spelling. > According to convention, shouldn't that be single-humped, javaScript? And what the hell does this have to do with Php? -- ***************************** Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO http://cycletourist.com Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In *****************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-03 23:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: server-side vs.client-side |
| Message-ID | <l57eb8$i43$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11728 |
Chuck Anderson wrote: > Tim Streater wrote: >> In article <2819769.4COP93GsJZ@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' >> Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> >>> > "ECMAScript" is the name under which the language more commonly >>> known as >>> > "JavaScript" is standardized. >>> >>> First, note the different spelling. >> >> It is *not* a different spelling. >> > > According to convention, shouldn't that be single-humped, javaScript? > > And what the hell does this have to do with Php? > I should add, Tim, that the second comment is not directed at you. I just jumped in using your succinct post. -- ***************************** Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO http://cycletourist.com Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In *****************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-04 18:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: server-side vs.client-side |
| Message-ID | <041120131802376130%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #11729 |
In article <l57eb8$i43$1@dont-email.me>, Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Chuck Anderson wrote: > > Tim Streater wrote: > >> In article <2819769.4COP93GsJZ@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars' > >> Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >> > >>> > "ECMAScript" is the name under which the language more commonly > >>> known as > >>> > "JavaScript" is standardized. > >>> > >>> First, note the different spelling. > >> > >> It is *not* a different spelling. > > According to convention, shouldn't that be single-humped, javaScript? > > > > And what the hell does this have to do with Php? > I should add, Tim, that the second comment is not directed at you. I > just jumped in using your succinct post. Well that's how I took it :-) And, woss more, you are quite right, this has nothing to do with PHP. Not sure how we got here, although with PointyHead involved, anything's possible. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 09:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: server-side vs.client-side |
| Message-ID | <5270BECE.9040006@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #11636 |
Christoph Michael Becker, 2013-10-29 21:45: > Arno Welzel wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, 2013-10-28 03:22: >> >>> 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”. >> >> Historically PHP had *always* been targeted to be used on a server to >> generate output for one or more clients delivered via HTTP. That's the >> reason why there are modules for Apache, why PHP supports CGI and why >> literally every book about PHP teaches how to create websites using PHP >> and not how to build desktop applications using PHP. [...] > It seems you're not taken into account command line applications, for > which PHP is well suited.[1] These often run outside of any > client-server context, such as phing and phpunit (which I am using > "every" day), for instance. > > [1] <http://php.net/manual/en/features.commandline.php> Indeed - I did not include this. Thanks for the addition. But even though it is possible to use PHP in this way (and some PHP applications even include scripts which should be used as command line scripts only - e.g. the Piwik statistics archiver) I would not call PHP the typical universal scripting language which is also used to run websites. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-28 15:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4lvi8$je4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11601 |
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:24:25 -0400, richard wrote: > So then when an mp3 file is downloaded, is it downloaded entirely into > the browser BEFORE the audio is played? > Then why do we have buffering? > The server almost has to know when any given mp3 file is being played. Not at all. The server only knows that something on the client has asked for the file. The server doesn't know if the file is playing or not. Supposing I type: wget http://richards_server/some_audio_file.mp3 How does your server tell whether I'm opening the file in an audio editor, saving it to hard disk, streaming it over internet radio or playing it on my speakers? -- Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-28 16:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4m4vi$too$4@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11612 |
On 28/10/13 15:23, Denis McMahon wrote: > On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:24:25 -0400, richard wrote: > >> So then when an mp3 file is downloaded, is it downloaded entirely into >> the browser BEFORE the audio is played? >> Then why do we have buffering? >> The server almost has to know when any given mp3 file is being played. > > Not at all. > > The server only knows that something on the client has asked for the file. > > The server doesn't know if the file is playing or not. > > Supposing I type: > > wget http://richards_server/some_audio_file.mp3 > > How does your server tell whether I'm opening the file in an audio > editor, saving it to hard disk, streaming it over internet radio or > playing it on my speakers? > or directing it to /dev/null where it probably belongs... -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-27 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA266921FC14E4dougmilmaccom@78.46.70.116> |
| In reply to | #11595 |
richard <noreply@example.com> wrote in news:1ia1p6efkuy6j.ew455c20yr22$.dlg@ 40tude.net: > Does php have any method of checking to determine if audio is playing or > not? Think about it a bit: php runs on the server, the audio player runs on the client.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-28 20:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bd7qlaF17g0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11595 |
Am 27.10.2013 15:58, schrieb richard: > Does php have any method of checking to determine if audio is playing or > not? No. Since PHP only executes scripts on server side it can not determine anything which goes on on the client. > While I'm using the JWplayer on my site, I don't like the way the flash > handles the scrolling. > > What I want to do is, have my own external playlist and do a continous play > loop. So that when item 1 is playing, that division in the list is > highlighted. When item 1 stops, drops to item 2 and item 2 plays. > > All I need is the audio player to play the corresponding item. This has to be handled using JavaScript or similar on the client side and is out of scope of this newsgroup. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php
csiph-web