Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #16110 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-06 17:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 16:11 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php
parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-06 17:18 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-06 19:28 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-06 20:50 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-06 21:12 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-06 16:20 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-07 02:23 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2016-01-06 21:48 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2016-01-06 21:52 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 10:20 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-07 10:56 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-07 12:55 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-07 08:36 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-07 13:58 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-07 15:33 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-07 15:31 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-07 18:23 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-06 22:50 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 10:10 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 10:03 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-07 08:38 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-07 14:05 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-07 13:42 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-07 20:24 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-07 15:27 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 09:51 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-07 11:18 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 14:00 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-07 14:00 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 16:19 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-11 09:11 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-11 08:04 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-11 23:48 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-12 00:41 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-11 20:53 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-12 05:40 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 09:12 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-12 21:43 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 16:12 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-12 22:28 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 16:35 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-13 06:39 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-13 08:26 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-13 08:10 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-13 14:49 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-13 10:08 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-13 18:50 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-13 15:06 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-13 23:11 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-13 17:18 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-13 23:27 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-13 19:17 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-14 01:30 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-13 20:52 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-14 08:13 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-14 09:18 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-14 20:07 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-14 16:06 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-14 22:41 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-14 22:35 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:24 +1300
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-13 17:20 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:14 +1300
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-13 19:18 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-14 08:34 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@geostat.dk> - 2016-01-14 09:20 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-14 21:56 +1300
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-14 16:08 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-14 22:55 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-14 16:59 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-14 23:09 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-15 11:17 +1300
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-14 19:15 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-14 19:14 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-11 20:50 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-12 05:42 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-12 08:41 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 09:13 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-12 21:44 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 16:13 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-12 22:29 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 16:33 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-12 00:49 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-11 20:54 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-07 11:17 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 13:49 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-07 14:20 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 15:31 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-07 16:00 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-07 13:45 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-07 20:18 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-07 20:52 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-07 15:29 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-01-07 22:42 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-08 10:43 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-11 09:07 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-11 08:05 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-01-11 23:51 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-12 00:31 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-11 20:55 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-12 11:11 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remains unanswered ... "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-12 11:54 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remains unanswered ... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-12 11:25 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remains unanswered ... "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-12 13:41 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remains unanswered ... "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-01-12 14:11 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remainsunanswered ... "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-12 14:34 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remainsunanswered ... "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-01-12 15:03 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - questionremainsunanswered ... "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-12 15:50 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - questionremainsunanswered ... "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-01-12 16:36 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - Solved. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-12 21:28 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remains unanswered ... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-01-12 14:02 +0000
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remains unanswered ... "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-01-12 12:42 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remainsunanswered ... "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-12 14:20 +0100
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remains unanswered ... Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-01-12 09:43 -0500
Re: parsing print_r() output with preg_match_all() - question remainsunanswered ... "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2016-01-12 16:11 +0100
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 06:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5695E316.9050809@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16231 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-12 um 22:35: > On 1/12/2016 4:28 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-12 um 22:12: >> >>> On 1/12/2016 3:43 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-12 um 15:12: >>>>> On 1/11/2016 11:40 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-12 um 02:53: >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> I'm referring to the "human *readable*" format - just as the op did. >>>>>>> But you don't understand the problems - just like the other troll does. >>>>>> >>>>>> JSON *is* human readable. Do you even know what JSON is? >>>>>> >>>>>> If not - here is the official standard: >>>>>> >>>>>> ECMA-404 - The JSON Data Interchange Format >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-404.pdf> >>>>>> >>>>>> "JSON is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data >>>>>> interchange format." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I know exactly what JSON is, troll. And while it *can* be read, it's >>>>> not very obvious unless you already know what you're looking for. >>>> >>>> If you know JSON then why don't you see it as a standard, old grey >>>> bearded man? >>>> >>> >>> I never said it wasn't a standard, troll. But you keep trying to put >>> words in my mouth. All it does is show your stoopidity. >> >> No - but you say I don't know what a standard is - just based in the >> fact that I mentioned JSON as a standard. >> >> So I must assume you believe JSON is not a standard. >> > > Once again you're trying to put words in my mouth, troll. But you're > just showing how stoopid you are. > > >>>> And "human readable" generally means it is *text* which can be easily >>>> opened using any kind of text editor and you can see the general >>>> structure there. >>>> >>>> If you describe XML as "human readable" as in >>>> <n6k0a5$od7$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> then JSON also falls into >>>> this category - since XML can be quite confusing as well. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> xml can be quite a bit easier to read and understand - if you do it >>> correctly. But you wouldn't know. >> >> The same is true for JSON - but you don't know. >> >> > > No, you have no control over the format of JSON. You have a great deal > of control over the format of XML. But you obviously are too stoopid to > understand that. How like a troll. You are really a stubborn old man with the mental flexibility of a rock. Since XML and JSON are both *text* you have every control over the format you need. json_ecnode() supports at least a number of options to change the way the output is created - but of course it is not the only way to create JSON output as the XMLWriter class is not the only way to create XML. It seems you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I mentioned JSON as a human readable standard instead of using var_dump() since var_dump() is not meant to be parsed. Then you said that I don't know what a standard is and that JSON is not "human readable". I even believe you don't know what "human readable" really means. Hint: the numbers above an GTIN-13 bar code are "human readable" even if you don't know what they mean - but at least you can read them in case the barcode reader does not work. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 08:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3379162.E9hbfFyqC5@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #16234 |
Arno Welzel wrote:
> […] the numbers above an GTIN-13 bar code are "human readable" even if you
^^^^^
> don't know what they mean - but at least you can read them in case the
> barcode reader does not work.
_below_
--
PointedEars
Zend Certified PHP Engineer
<http://www.zend.com/en/yellow-pages/ZEND024953> | Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 08:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n75i64$jon$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #16234 |
On 1/13/2016 12:39 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-12 um 22:35: > >> On 1/12/2016 4:28 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-12 um 22:12: >>> >>>> On 1/12/2016 3:43 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-12 um 15:12: >>>>>> On 1/11/2016 11:40 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-12 um 02:53: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> I'm referring to the "human *readable*" format - just as the op did. >>>>>>>> But you don't understand the problems - just like the other troll does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JSON *is* human readable. Do you even know what JSON is? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not - here is the official standard: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ECMA-404 - The JSON Data Interchange Format >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-404.pdf> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "JSON is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data >>>>>>> interchange format." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I know exactly what JSON is, troll. And while it *can* be read, it's >>>>>> not very obvious unless you already know what you're looking for. >>>>> >>>>> If you know JSON then why don't you see it as a standard, old grey >>>>> bearded man? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I never said it wasn't a standard, troll. But you keep trying to put >>>> words in my mouth. All it does is show your stoopidity. >>> >>> No - but you say I don't know what a standard is - just based in the >>> fact that I mentioned JSON as a standard. >>> >>> So I must assume you believe JSON is not a standard. >>> >> >> Once again you're trying to put words in my mouth, troll. But you're >> just showing how stoopid you are. >> >> >>>>> And "human readable" generally means it is *text* which can be easily >>>>> opened using any kind of text editor and you can see the general >>>>> structure there. >>>>> >>>>> If you describe XML as "human readable" as in >>>>> <n6k0a5$od7$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> then JSON also falls into >>>>> this category - since XML can be quite confusing as well. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> xml can be quite a bit easier to read and understand - if you do it >>>> correctly. But you wouldn't know. >>> >>> The same is true for JSON - but you don't know. >>> >>> >> >> No, you have no control over the format of JSON. You have a great deal >> of control over the format of XML. But you obviously are too stoopid to >> understand that. How like a troll. > > You are really a stubborn old man with the mental flexibility of a rock. > > Since XML and JSON are both *text* you have every control over the > format you need. json_ecnode() supports at least a number of options to > change the way the output is created - but of course it is not the only > way to create JSON output as the XMLWriter class is not the only way to > create XML. > > It seems you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I mentioned > JSON as a human readable standard instead of using var_dump() since > var_dump() is not meant to be parsed. Then you said that I don't know > what a standard is and that JSON is not "human readable". I even believe > you don't know what "human readable" really means. Hint: the numbers > above an GTIN-13 bar code are "human readable" even if you don't know > what they mean - but at least you can read them in case the barcode > reader does not work. > > Sure, I know what JSON is all about, troll. But no matter how you cut it, you can create XML much more human readable than JSON. But you've never done anything with XML, so you have no idea what it's about. Keep it up, troll. You're just continuing to show how stoopid you are. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 14:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <569655E9.5000501@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16238 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 14:10: > On 1/13/2016 12:39 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: [..] >> It seems you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I mentioned >> JSON as a human readable standard instead of using var_dump() since >> var_dump() is not meant to be parsed. Then you said that I don't know >> what a standard is and that JSON is not "human readable". I even believe >> you don't know what "human readable" really means. Hint: the numbers >> above an GTIN-13 bar code are "human readable" even if you don't know >> what they mean - but at least you can read them in case the barcode >> reader does not work. >> >> > > Sure, I know what JSON is all about, troll. But no matter how you cut No, you don't. > it, you can create XML much more human readable than JSON. But you've > never done anything with XML, so you have no idea what it's about. When talking about a "human readable" data format there is no a "more" or "less" - either something is readable for humans or not. As I said - you even don't know what "human readable" means - QED. > Keep it up, troll. You're just continuing to show how stoopid you are. Well - it is obvious who behaves stupid here. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 10:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n75p4u$g08$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #16241 |
On 1/13/2016 8:49 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 14:10: > >> On 1/13/2016 12:39 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > [..] >>> It seems you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I mentioned >>> JSON as a human readable standard instead of using var_dump() since >>> var_dump() is not meant to be parsed. Then you said that I don't know >>> what a standard is and that JSON is not "human readable". I even believe >>> you don't know what "human readable" really means. Hint: the numbers >>> above an GTIN-13 bar code are "human readable" even if you don't know >>> what they mean - but at least you can read them in case the barcode >>> reader does not work. >>> >>> >> >> Sure, I know what JSON is all about, troll. But no matter how you cut > > No, you don't. > ROFLMAO! You keep making absurd claims about what I know and don't know. None of them are true, and they only makes you look more stoopid than ever. But that's just like a troll. >> it, you can create XML much more human readable than JSON. But you've >> never done anything with XML, so you have no idea what it's about. > > When talking about a "human readable" data format there is no a "more" > or "less" - either something is readable for humans or not. As I said - > you even don't know what "human readable" means - QED. > And it shows you don't know anything about what's readable and what isn't. Just because something is made up of ASCII characters does not mean it's readable! Another stoopid claim by the troll. >> Keep it up, troll. You're just continuing to show how stoopid you are. > > Well - it is obvious who behaves stupid here. > > Yup, you do. No question. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <56968E64.10901@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16244 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 16:08: > On 1/13/2016 8:49 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 14:10: >> >>> On 1/13/2016 12:39 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> [..] >>>> It seems you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I mentioned >>>> JSON as a human readable standard instead of using var_dump() since >>>> var_dump() is not meant to be parsed. Then you said that I don't know >>>> what a standard is and that JSON is not "human readable". I even believe >>>> you don't know what "human readable" really means. Hint: the numbers >>>> above an GTIN-13 bar code are "human readable" even if you don't know >>>> what they mean - but at least you can read them in case the barcode >>>> reader does not work. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Sure, I know what JSON is all about, troll. But no matter how you cut >> >> No, you don't. >> > > ROFLMAO! You keep making absurd claims about what I know and don't > know. None of them are true, and they only makes you look more stoopid > than ever. But that's just like a troll. And you? You don't make absurd claims about what I know? In fact you say that XML can be much "more" human readable that JSON - and this obviously shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>> it, you can create XML much more human readable than JSON. But you've >>> never done anything with XML, so you have no idea what it's about. >> >> When talking about a "human readable" data format there is no a "more" >> or "less" - either something is readable for humans or not. As I said - >> you even don't know what "human readable" means - QED. >> > > And it shows you don't know anything about what's readable and what > isn't. Just because something is made up of ASCII characters does not > mean it's readable! Wrong - this *is* the meaning of "human readable" - in opposite to binary data which can only read by a machine. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 15:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n76aim$ph9$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #16249 |
On 1/13/2016 12:50 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 16:08: > >> On 1/13/2016 8:49 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 14:10: >>> >>>> On 1/13/2016 12:39 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> [..] >>>>> It seems you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I mentioned >>>>> JSON as a human readable standard instead of using var_dump() since >>>>> var_dump() is not meant to be parsed. Then you said that I don't know >>>>> what a standard is and that JSON is not "human readable". I even believe >>>>> you don't know what "human readable" really means. Hint: the numbers >>>>> above an GTIN-13 bar code are "human readable" even if you don't know >>>>> what they mean - but at least you can read them in case the barcode >>>>> reader does not work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, I know what JSON is all about, troll. But no matter how you cut >>> >>> No, you don't. >>> >> >> ROFLMAO! You keep making absurd claims about what I know and don't >> know. None of them are true, and they only makes you look more stoopid >> than ever. But that's just like a troll. > > And you? You don't make absurd claims about what I know? > > In fact you say that XML can be much "more" human readable that JSON - > and this obviously shows that you don't know what you are talking about. > Nothing absurd about that claim - as anyone who understands both JSON and XML can attest. >>>> it, you can create XML much more human readable than JSON. But you've >>>> never done anything with XML, so you have no idea what it's about. >>> >>> When talking about a "human readable" data format there is no a "more" >>> or "less" - either something is readable for humans or not. As I said - >>> you even don't know what "human readable" means - QED. >>> >> >> And it shows you don't know anything about what's readable and what >> isn't. Just because something is made up of ASCII characters does not >> mean it's readable! > > Wrong - this *is* the meaning of "human readable" - in opposite to > binary data which can only read by a machine. > > Wrong again, troll. "Human readable" also requires *understanding*. But trolls are too stoopid to understand much of anything. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 23:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5696CB98.1050202@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16250 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 21:06: > On 1/13/2016 12:50 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: [...] >> In fact you say that XML can be much "more" human readable that JSON - >> and this obviously shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >> > > Nothing absurd about that claim - as anyone who understands both JSON > and XML can attest. Oh my... I think nobdy here may understand JSON and XML then because nobdy here will agree to you. >> Wrong - this *is* the meaning of "human readable" - in opposite to >> binary data which can only read by a machine. >> >> > > Wrong again, troll. "Human readable" also requires *understanding*. Grab a dictionary and look up the difference between "readable" and "understandable". -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 17:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n76iah$q6j$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #16252 |
On 1/13/2016 5:11 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 21:06: > >> On 1/13/2016 12:50 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > [...] >>> In fact you say that XML can be much "more" human readable that JSON - >>> and this obviously shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>> >> >> Nothing absurd about that claim - as anyone who understands both JSON >> and XML can attest. > > Oh my... I think nobdy here may understand JSON and XML then because > nobdy here will agree to you. > No, you're the only one who disagrees. > >>> Wrong - this *is* the meaning of "human readable" - in opposite to >>> binary data which can only read by a machine. >>> >>> >> >> Wrong again, troll. "Human readable" also requires *understanding*. > > Grab a dictionary and look up the difference between "readable" and > "understandable". > Then look up the meaning of "human readable". I know English isn't your first language - but you're too stoopid to understand, troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 23:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5696CF57.2050006@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16253 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 23:18: > On 1/13/2016 5:11 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 21:06: >> >>> On 1/13/2016 12:50 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> [...] >>>> In fact you say that XML can be much "more" human readable that JSON - >>>> and this obviously shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>>> >>> >>> Nothing absurd about that claim - as anyone who understands both JSON >>> and XML can attest. >> >> Oh my... I think nobdy here may understand JSON and XML then because >> nobdy here will agree to you. >> > > No, you're the only one who disagrees. Huh? Who agrees to you? Any refernce? Oh wait - no, you will now tell my that you don't need to prove anything because you are Jerry Stuckle the one and only and everybody has to believe everything you say... ROTFL -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 19:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n76pa9$kou$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #16255 |
On 1/13/2016 5:27 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 23:18: > >> On 1/13/2016 5:11 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 21:06: >>> >>>> On 1/13/2016 12:50 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> In fact you say that XML can be much "more" human readable that JSON - >>>>> and this obviously shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nothing absurd about that claim - as anyone who understands both JSON >>>> and XML can attest. >>> >>> Oh my... I think nobdy here may understand JSON and XML then because >>> nobdy here will agree to you. >>> >> >> No, you're the only one who disagrees. > > Huh? Who agrees to you? Any refernce? Oh wait - no, you will now tell my > that you don't need to prove anything because you are Jerry Stuckle the > one and only and everybody has to believe everything you say... ROTFL > > I don't see anyone else disagreeing - except the troll - YOU. But then trolls always think everyone in the world is on their side. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 01:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5696EC31.7000706@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16259 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 01:17: > On 1/13/2016 5:27 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 23:18: >> >>> On 1/13/2016 5:11 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 21:06: >>>> >>>>> On 1/13/2016 12:50 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> In fact you say that XML can be much "more" human readable that JSON - >>>>>> and this obviously shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nothing absurd about that claim - as anyone who understands both JSON >>>>> and XML can attest. >>>> >>>> Oh my... I think nobdy here may understand JSON and XML then because >>>> nobdy here will agree to you. >>>> >>> >>> No, you're the only one who disagrees. >> >> Huh? Who agrees to you? Any refernce? Oh wait - no, you will now tell my >> that you don't need to prove anything because you are Jerry Stuckle the >> one and only and everybody has to believe everything you say... ROTFL >> >> > > I don't see anyone else disagreeing - except the troll - YOU. But then > trolls always think everyone in the world is on their side. And I don't see anyone agreeing - except you. Doesn't that get boring after all? Don't you have better things to do? -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 20:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n76uro$2oh$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #16261 |
On 1/13/2016 7:30 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 01:17: >> On 1/13/2016 5:27 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 23:18: >>> >>>> On 1/13/2016 5:11 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-13 um 21:06: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/13/2016 12:50 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>>> In fact you say that XML can be much "more" human readable that JSON - >>>>>>> and this obviously shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing absurd about that claim - as anyone who understands both JSON >>>>>> and XML can attest. >>>>> >>>>> Oh my... I think nobdy here may understand JSON and XML then because >>>>> nobdy here will agree to you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, you're the only one who disagrees. >>> >>> Huh? Who agrees to you? Any refernce? Oh wait - no, you will now tell my >>> that you don't need to prove anything because you are Jerry Stuckle the >>> one and only and everybody has to believe everything you say... ROTFL >>> >>> >> >> I don't see anyone else disagreeing - except the troll - YOU. But then >> trolls always think everyone in the world is on their side. > > And I don't see anyone agreeing - except you. Doesn't that get boring > after all? Don't you have better things to do? > > ROFLMAO! Stoopid is as stoopid does. Nothing more than a troll. You don't even know what a common term like "human readable" means. How about reading this: "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow"? It's all ASCII. Now what does it mean? According to you, it is "Human Readable". -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 08:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <56974A9B.8090804@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16262 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 02:52: [...] > ROFLMAO! Stoopid is as stoopid does. Nothing more than a troll. You > don't even know what a common term like "human readable" means. I do. > How about reading this: "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow"? It's all ASCII. And I can read it perfectly. > Now what does it mean? According to you, it is "Human Readable". It is. Or can't you read the letters? You still mix up "readable" with "understandable". I found that printed below a bar code on a product in the supermarket: "004980 534100" According to you this is not "human readable" as nobody can understand what these numbers mean exactly. According to you the manufacturer of the product must print the exact article description below the bar code so everybody will understand that the code is an article number and what article it refers to. Or this one: "a94a8fe5ccb19ba61c4c0873d391e987982fbbd3" According to you this is not "human readable" as well - even though it is the ASCII representation of an SHA1 hash which is originally never used like this but only printed in this way so *humans* can *read* it. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 09:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n78aih$1rc$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #16263 |
On 1/14/2016 2:13 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 02:52: > > [...] >> ROFLMAO! Stoopid is as stoopid does. Nothing more than a troll. You >> don't even know what a common term like "human readable" means. > > I do. > >> How about reading this: "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow"? It's all ASCII. > > And I can read it perfectly. > Then what does it mean? >> Now what does it mean? According to you, it is "Human Readable". > > It is. Or can't you read the letters? You still mix up "readable" with > "understandable". > What does it mean? Reading includes comprehension - which requires understanding. > I found that printed below a bar code on a product in the supermarket: > "004980 534100" > It's the product code for that item. > According to you this is not "human readable" as nobody can understand > what these numbers mean exactly. According to you the manufacturer of > the product must print the exact article description below the bar code > so everybody will understand that the code is an article number and what > article it refers to. > Sure, because I know the context. > Or this one: > "a94a8fe5ccb19ba61c4c0873d391e987982fbbd3" > > According to you this is not "human readable" as well - even though it > is the ASCII representation of an SHA1 hash which is originally never > used like this but only printed in this way so *humans* can *read* it. > > Reading includes comprehension - which requires understanding. That's why children learn to read. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 20:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5697F20D.8@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16271 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 15:18: > On 1/14/2016 2:13 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 02:52: >> >> [...] >>> ROFLMAO! Stoopid is as stoopid does. Nothing more than a troll. You >>> don't even know what a common term like "human readable" means. >> >> I do. >> >>> How about reading this: "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow"? It's all ASCII. >> >> And I can read it perfectly. >> > > Then what does it mean? That's irrelevant. >>> Now what does it mean? According to you, it is "Human Readable". >> >> It is. Or can't you read the letters? You still mix up "readable" with >> "understandable". >> > > What does it mean? Reading includes comprehension - which requires > understanding. No. You still don't understand what the *DEFINITION* of "human readable" is. >> I found that printed below a bar code on a product in the supermarket: >> "004980 534100" >> > > It's the product code for that item. And how do you know this? There is no text indicating that this is a product code - it's just a number. >> According to you this is not "human readable" as nobody can understand >> what these numbers mean exactly. According to you the manufacturer of >> the product must print the exact article description below the bar code >> so everybody will understand that the code is an article number and what >> article it refers to. >> > > Sure, because I know the context. And know you start to understand. >> Or this one: >> "a94a8fe5ccb19ba61c4c0873d391e987982fbbd3" >> >> According to you this is not "human readable" as well - even though it >> is the ASCII representation of an SHA1 hash which is originally never >> used like this but only printed in this way so *humans* can *read* it. >> >> > > Reading includes comprehension - which requires understanding. That's > why children learn to read. And first of all children learn the meaning of letters - thats why *letters* are called "human readable". If one also *understands* the meaning of the letters depends on the *context* and the *knowledge* of the person about the text. Just because "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow" does not have any meaning for you or me it does *not* mean that it can not be *read*, letter by letter. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 16:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n792eo$4ij$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #16274 |
On 1/14/2016 2:07 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 15:18: > >> On 1/14/2016 2:13 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 02:52: >>> >>> [...] >>>> ROFLMAO! Stoopid is as stoopid does. Nothing more than a troll. You >>>> don't even know what a common term like "human readable" means. >>> >>> I do. >>> >>>> How about reading this: "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow"? It's all ASCII. >>> >>> And I can read it perfectly. >>> >> >> Then what does it mean? > > That's irrelevant. > Only because it's not readable to you. >>>> Now what does it mean? According to you, it is "Human Readable". >>> >>> It is. Or can't you read the letters? You still mix up "readable" with >>> "understandable". >>> >> >> What does it mean? Reading includes comprehension - which requires >> understanding. > > No. You still don't understand what the *DEFINITION* of "human readable" is. > Yes, I do. But you have zero clue - as usual. >>> I found that printed below a bar code on a product in the supermarket: >>> "004980 534100" >>> >> >> It's the product code for that item. > > And how do you know this? There is no text indicating that this is a > product code - it's just a number. > Because you told me the context. >>> According to you this is not "human readable" as nobody can understand >>> what these numbers mean exactly. According to you the manufacturer of >>> the product must print the exact article description below the bar code >>> so everybody will understand that the code is an article number and what >>> article it refers to. >>> >> >> Sure, because I know the context. > > And know you start to understand. > I understand, all right. You don't, though. >>> Or this one: >>> "a94a8fe5ccb19ba61c4c0873d391e987982fbbd3" >>> >>> According to you this is not "human readable" as well - even though it >>> is the ASCII representation of an SHA1 hash which is originally never >>> used like this but only printed in this way so *humans* can *read* it. >>> >>> >> >> Reading includes comprehension - which requires understanding. That's >> why children learn to read. > > And first of all children learn the meaning of letters - thats why > *letters* are called "human readable". If one also *understands* the > meaning of the letters depends on the *context* and the *knowledge* of > the person about the text. Just because "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow" does > not have any meaning for you or me it does *not* mean that it can not be > *read*, letter by letter. > Yes, but learning the letters does not give them the capability of reading. But you're wrong - "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow" does have a meaning for me. But you can't understand it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 22:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <569815FD.3030100@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #16276 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 22:06: > On 1/14/2016 2:07 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 15:18: >> >>> On 1/14/2016 2:13 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 02:52: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>>> ROFLMAO! Stoopid is as stoopid does. Nothing more than a troll. You >>>>> don't even know what a common term like "human readable" means. >>>> >>>> I do. >>>> >>>>> How about reading this: "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow"? It's all ASCII. >>>> >>>> And I can read it perfectly. >>>> >>> >>> Then what does it mean? >> >> That's irrelevant. >> > > Only because it's not readable to you. No - because it's irrelevant to answer the question if the text is readable. I can read the text. I don't need to understand what it means. I also don't know every language in the world - but as long is I can read the letters the words are still readable for me, like "o inatci adam" which you may not understand but you can read it, or not? >>>>> Now what does it mean? According to you, it is "Human Readable". >>>> >>>> It is. Or can't you read the letters? You still mix up "readable" with >>>> "understandable". >>>> >>> >>> What does it mean? Reading includes comprehension - which requires >>> understanding. >> >> No. You still don't understand what the *DEFINITION* of "human readable" is. >> > > Yes, I do. But you have zero clue - as usual. You don't. >>>> I found that printed below a bar code on a product in the supermarket: >>>> "004980 534100" >>>> >>> >>> It's the product code for that item. >> >> And how do you know this? There is no text indicating that this is a >> product code - it's just a number. >> > > Because you told me the context. I did not. I just say there is a code on the product. This does not mean that this is the product code. In fact it isn't. But this is irrelevant - the numbers are there to be understood, but to be *readable*. One can read them and enter them into a computer in case the barcode scanner does recognize the code. [...] >>> Reading includes comprehension - which requires understanding. That's >>> why children learn to read. >> >> And first of all children learn the meaning of letters - thats why >> *letters* are called "human readable". If one also *understands* the >> meaning of the letters depends on the *context* and the *knowledge* of >> the person about the text. Just because "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow" does >> not have any meaning for you or me it does *not* mean that it can not be >> *read*, letter by letter. >> > > Yes, but learning the letters does not give them the capability of > reading. But you're wrong - "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow" does have a > meaning for me. But you can't understand it. Which is irrelevant - I still can read the letters. And if someone else asks me, what I have read I can say "ardo nmwp wccdcw pnebow". It does not matter what this means. That's the reason why "human readable" does not require that people *understand* what's written - they just need to be able to *read* it. Another example: LDA #$00 STA REV JSR Init CLD LDX #$FF TXS LDX #$C8 STX SP2 Do you recognize this kind of text? No? But you still can read the letters like "LDA" or "STA REV" or "JSR Init". So would call the above example "not human readable"? -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 22:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3492114.bGHde9P5lu@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #16261 |
Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2016-01-14 um 01:17: >> [irrelevant] > > And I don't see anyone agreeing - except you. Doesn't that get boring > after all? Don't you have better things to do? Speaking of which, I can’t believe you are *still* feeding the troll. F'up2 poster -- PointedEars Zend Certified PHP Engineer <http://www.zend.com/en/yellow-pages/ZEND024953> | Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 10:24 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <dfntkrFlbg7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16238 |
Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 1/13/2016 12:39 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> It seems you really don't understand what I'm talking about. I mentioned >> JSON as a human readable standard instead of using var_dump() since >> var_dump() is not meant to be parsed. Then you said that I don't know >> what a standard is and that JSON is not "human readable". I even believe >> you don't know what "human readable" really means. Hint: the numbers >> above an GTIN-13 bar code are "human readable" even if you don't know >> what they mean - but at least you can read them in case the barcode >> reader does not work. > > Sure, I know what JSON is all about, troll. But no matter how you cut > it, you can create XML much more human readable than JSON. But you've > never done anything with XML, so you have no idea what it's about. The hypervisor OS I use uses JSON for all of its configuration and status output. It's clearly an easy format for both normal humans and machines to read. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php
csiph-web